Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 1/27/2026 have been entered. Claim 7 is amended and Claim 18 is new.
Support for the amendments can be found in original Claims 1 and 9.
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7 and 8, filed 1/27/2026, with respect to Claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive: Applicant has provided sufficient reasoning as to why the elastic layer of Yamada would not inherently comprise the claimed compressive strength. Although Yamada teaches an elastic layer with the same materials as the present invention, the compressive strength would also depend on other properties such as density and/or porosity. The rejection of 11/03/2025 has been withdrawn.
On page 7, Applicant appears to argue unexpected results with regards to the effect of the claimed compressive strength in the claimed compressibility interval on minimizing short circuits. This argument is unpersuasive: The examples presented in Table 1 only display compressive strengths between 0.29 and 0.32. Furthermore, the compressive strength is only measured at one compression value (paragraph 00176). As such, the data provided is not commensurate in scope with the ranges of Claim 1.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1, 3-5, 10-15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5, and 13-14 of Kim (U.S. Patent No. 12,658,511 B2) in view of Ugaji (US 20060216611 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 4 of Kim discloses a unit cell comprising a laminate in which a cathode layer; a solid electrolyte layer; an anode layer; and an elastic layer are sequentially arranged (Claim 1). The elastic layer has a 50% compression force deflection of 0.25 MPa to 0.55 MPa (Claim 4), which would read on a compressive strength of about 0.28 MPa to about 0.60 MPa at 50% compression.
Kim does not disclose that a plurality of the unit cells or that the plurality of the unit cells is stacked.
Ugaji teaches that it is possible to stack a plurality of solid-state batteries to form a stacked battery (0064).
Kim and Ugaji are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely solid-state batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a plurality of the unit cells of Kim and to have stacked them to form a stacked battery as Ugaji teaches it as a known use for solid-state batteries. Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of solid-state batteries used in a suitable manner and it has been held that the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 3-5, modified Kim teaches the structure of Claim 1 (See above). Claim 1 of Kim teaches an overlapping stress relaxation of 3% to 25% and Claim 5 of Kim teaches an overlapping recovery rate (compression recovery ratio) of 65% to 99%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges as the selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claims 10-12, modified Kim teaches the structure of Claim 1. Claim 13 of Kim would read on the limitations of Claims 10-12 of the present invention.
Regarding Claims 13-15, modified Kim teaches the structure of Claim 1. Claim 14 of Kim would read on the limitations of Claims 13-15 of the present invention.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11 and 17 of Cho `477 (copending Application No. 18/880,477).
Regarding Claim 1, Cho `477 discloses a unit cell structure, comprising a plurality of stacked unit cells, each unit cell of the plurality of stacked unit cells comprising a laminate in which a cathode layer; a solid electrolyte layer; an anode layer; and an elastic layer are sequentially arranged (Claim 17). The elastic layer may have a compressive strength at 40% compression of 0.5 MPa to 1.5 MPa (Claim 2), which would overlap the claimed range of about 0.28 MPa to about 0.60 MPa.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges as the selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 2, and 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 16 of Cho `728 (copending Application No. 18/105,728) in view of Ugaji (US 20060216611 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, Cho `782 teaches discloses a unit cell comprising a laminate in which a cathode layer; a solid electrolyte layer; an anode layer; and an elastic layer are sequentially arranged (Claim 1). The elastic sheet may have a compressive strength of about 0.27 to about 0.35 MPa at 40% of the initial thickness (Claim 16), which would read on the claimed range of about 0.28 MPa to about 0.6 MPa of Claims 1 and 2 of the present invention.
Cho `782 does not teach a unit stack-cell structure comprising a plurality of stacked unit cells.
Ugaji teaches that it is possible to stack a plurality of solid-state batteries to form a stacked battery (0064).
Cho `782 and Ugaji are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely solid-state batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a plurality of the unit cells of Cho `782 and to have stacked them to form a stacked battery as Ugaji teaches it as a known use for solid-state batteries. Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of solid-state batteries used in a suitable manner and it has been held that the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Cho `782 teaches the structure of Claim 1. Cho teaches that the elastic layer is a compressive pad to which pressure is applied to have a thickness of about 30% to about 60% of the initial thickness before the pressure is applied (Claim 1), which would read on the claimed range of about 40% to about 90%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges as the selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 18-19 of Cho `098 (copending Application No. 18/825,098) in view of Ugaji (US 20060216611 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Cho `098 teaches discloses a unit cell comprising a laminate in which a cathode layer; a solid electrolyte layer; an anode layer; and an elastic layer are sequentially arranged (Claim 20). The elastic sheet may have a compressive strength of about 0.5 MPa to about 4 MPa at CFD 40% (Claims 18 and 19), which would overlap the claimed range of about 0.28 MPa to about 0.6 MP.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges as the selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Cho `098 does not teach a unit stack-cell structure comprising a plurality of stacked unit cells.
Ugaji teaches that it is possible to stack a plurality of solid-state batteries to form a stacked battery (0064).
Cho `098 and Ugaji are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely solid-state batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a plurality of the unit cells of Cho `098 and to have stacked them to form a stacked battery as Ugaji teaches it as a known use for solid-state batteries. Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of solid-state batteries used in a suitable manner and it has been held that the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claims 3-5, modified Cho `098 teaches the structure of Claim 1. Claims 18 and 19 of Cho `098 teaches stress relief rates (stress relaxation rates) and recovery rates that would overlap the claimed ranges of Claims 3-5 of the present invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges as the selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is allowed.
Claim 1 would be allowable if the double patenting rejections (See above) are resolved.
Claims 6-7, 9, and 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for allowance and the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach or suggest the limitations of Claims 1 and 18, namely “a laminate in which a cathode layer; a solid electrolyte layer; an anode layer; and elastic layer are sequentially arranged, wherein the elastic layer has a compressive strength of greater than or equal to about 0.28 MPa and less than about 0.6 MPa in a compressibility interval in a range of about 40% to about 70%”.
Lee (US 20170029589 A1) teaches a method of making a polymer foam (Abstract). The polymer foam has a compressive strength in a range from 0.2 MPa to 0.7 MPa when the compressive strain of the foam is between 10% and 70% (0014, Claim 21). Lee teaches that the foam has many industrial applications (0005) but does not explicitly disclose batteries as one of those applications.
Nicolay (US 20170204241 A1) teaches an electronic device having a cathode, electrolyte, anode, and buffer layer (0363). The electrolyte may comprise any material capable of conducting ions between electrodes (0396), which would include solid state electrolytes. The buffer layer, which can be viewed as an elastic layer, may comprise a polymer foam (0036). However, the buffer layer is placed between the anode and cathode (0363; Fig. 14 - part 142) and Nicolay would thus not read on the limitation of "a laminate in which a cathode layer; a solid electrolyte layer; an anode layer; and an elastic layer are sequentially arranged."
Goesmann (US 20140038030 A1) teaches the use of a polypropylene foam (0019) in an energy storage module (Abstract). However, the polypropylene foam is placed between two end plates (Abstract, 0019) rather than in the prismatic storage cells of the energy storage module.
Toms (US 6093468 A) teaches a pad for protecting the human body against impact forces (Abstract). The pad has a compression strength of about 42.8 psi at 50% deformation (Col. 6, lines 53-54).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIHENG LU whose telephone number is (703)756-1077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZIHENG LU/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights