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 .
Application Status
This office action is in response to the amendment of 3/12/2026 that was entered on 4/21/2026. Claims 1-17 are currently pending and being considered in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 was amended to state that the elastic sheet “in an insulator”. The originally filed disclosure provides no support for this limitations. As discussed in detail in the 4/15/2026 Advisory Action, although the examiner acknowledges many of the materials listed in par. 0060 would be considered electrical insulators, many of these same materials can be formulated to be conductive or semiconductive as well. Because the original disclosure did not specify the insulative versions of these materials, this limitation is essentially a negative limitation excluding non-insulative elastic materials, but negative limitations need a basis in the originally filed disclosure (MPEP 2173.05(i).
The examiner further notes over the previous advisory discussion that this new limitation can also interpreted as describing thermal insulators as well as the claim did not specify the particular insulative property desired.
Claims 2-17 are being rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9, 11, and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto et al (US 2020/0280102) in view of Honda (US 2018/0366785) as evidenced by ShinEtsu (Electrically Conductive Silicone Rubber Products) and Engineering Toolbox(Plastics – Thermal Conductivity Coefficients). Sakamoto and Honda were previously cited and relied on. ShinEtsu and Engineering Toolbox are being cited and relied on for the first time in this office action.
It is noted at the onset that Sakamoto denotes its anode and cathode structures generically as “first” and “second” structures and admits these can correspond to negative (anode) or positive (cathode) structures. See par. 0030-0033. For this rejection, I am interpreting collector layer 1e as being an anode current collector even if the cited paragraphs do not make that explicit. Moreover, it is noted this reference would still read on the claims if elements 2a and 3a were instead interpreted as the anode current collector with analogous electrodes and electrolytes meeting the other claimed features.
With respect to claim 1, Sakamoto discloses an electrode structure comprising an anode current collector 1e having opposite faces tentatively being referred to as first and second portions which face outwardly in opposite directions (the portion of 1e face up is the first portion, the portion of 1e facing downward in the second portion. Sakamoto further discloses first and second anode active layers (1d, 2d) (first and second anode plate layers) on the respective first and second portions, first and second solid electrolyte layers (1c, 2c) disposed on the first and second anode plate layers respectively, and first and second cathode active layers (1b, 2b) disposed on the first and second solid electrolyte layers respectively. See fig. 1 and par. 0036-0038.
Sakamoto does not disclose where the anode current collector is a single layer folded with an elastic sheet inside the interior space of the folded anode current collector. Honda discloses an alternate stacked cell where the single layer current collector 131 connecting adjacent cells is folded over on itself. Honda further discloses that an adhesive layer can be deposited in the interior space has an elastic sheet inside an interior space of the collector which increases the bonding strength between the various components of a stacked cell. See fig. 6 and par. 0112 and 0191-0195. With respect to this adhesive layer being an elastic sheet, it is disclosed as being a continuous film 301 (fig. 6 and par. 0195) and can be made out of soft-silicones (par. 0197) which would have some non-vanishing elasticity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify the teaching of Sakamoto with the current collector of Honda in order to provide a single layer current collector that provides resistance to delamination.
With respect to new limitation of claim 1 requiring the elastic sheet to be insulative, the examiner does not consider the conductive epoxy of Honda to be an electrical insulator. However, because claim 1 could be interpreted as specifying the elastic material is a thermal insulator. ShinEtsu evidences that conductive silicones (like those of Honda) can have thermal conductivities on the order of 0.38 W/mK (see “Typical Properties”). It is noted these thermal conductivities are similar to some of the materials recited in the present invention (e.g. Nylon and Fluoroelastomers like PTFE has thermal conductivities around 0.25 W/mK) (see Engineering Toolbox).
In the absence of any particular thermal insulative criteria to be met, the examiner will interpret electrically conductive adhesives having thermal conductivity on the order of the many of the materials of the present invention to be thermally insulative. Although Honda seems to suggest the adhesives should be electrical conductive, Honda does not seems to be concerned about the thermal properties of the adhesive and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to rely on any appropriate electrically conductive adhesives regardless of its thermal conductivity.
With respect to claim 3, current collector 1a of Sakamoto constitutes a cathode current collector.
With respect to claim 4, Sakamoto teaches SUS (stainless steel) for its current collector (par. 0171).
With respect to claim 5, Honda shows that some portions of current collector are uncoated. See the portions of 131 that extend beyond electrolyte 242 in fig. 6.
With respect to claim 6, Sakamoto teaches a plurality of stacked structures (10, 11, and 12) that are disclosed equivalently to each other.
With respect to claim 7, if cell 11 of Sakamoto were interpreted as being the claimed electrode structure (reinterpret the Sakamoto rejection of claim 1 above substituting a 3 and 4 for every time a 1 or 2 were used), then cells 10 and 12 would read on the first and second outermost stacks and those stacks also comprise the cathode and anode plate layers, electrolyte layers, and cathode current collectors (Sakamoto par. 0035-0038). Moreover, the alternative current collector structures of Honda can be used for any of the anode current collectors in Sakamoto and hence would constitute multiple anode current collectors and multiple elastic sheets.
With respect to claim 9 (those limitations not already covered above in claims 3 and 6), the leftmost and rightmost portions of 1a, 1e, 2a, 3a, 3e, 4a, 5a, 5e, and 6a in fig. 1 of Sakamoto constitute anode and cathode tabs and they are protruding in opposite directions (fig. 5).
With respect to claim 11, Sakamoto already set forth multiple electrode structures in contact with each other. Furthermore, Honda taught embodiments where multiple current collectors having the folding structure of fig. 6 (see fig. 42 for example) so one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the same adhesive layer could be utilized for all its folded current collectors. Sakamoto in view of Honda did not explicitly recite the folding direction of a first electrode structure is opposite the folding direction of the second. However, the orientation of the folds would have little bearing on the functioning of the device. In particular, the planar current collectors of Honda would operate the same regardless of how they are oriented and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to orient the current collectors in any number of ways, including in opposite directions, as the orientation would have no bearing of electrode structure performance.
With respect to claim 13, the folded current collector of Honda would extend continuously along opposite surfaces of the adhesive layer (elastic sheet). See fig. 6.
With respect to claim 14, although fig. 6 of Honda does not show the anode current collector extending beyond the extend of the adhesive layer (elastic sheet) (annotated below), Sakamoto shows that every current collector can extend beyond the battery components themselves to allow for electrical connection to the electrodes. Hence it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to extend Honda’s current collectors beyond the adhesive layer to provide electrical contact.
PNG
media_image1.png
346
867
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
357
598
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 15, fig. 6 of Honda shows the current collector 131 folded around the elastic sheet (adhesive layer) such that the same single layers are on directly opposite surfaces of the elastic sheet.
With respect to claim 16, see fig. 6 of Honda showing element 131 having the same thickness throughout.
With respect to claim 17, although Sakamoto illustrates the electrodes are all the same size, Honda teaches that it is known that the negative electrode (anode plate layer) is preferably made larger than the positive electrode (cathode plate layer) in order to improve reliability of the battery (par. 0148). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing for Sakamoto to similarly rely on anode plate layers that are larger than the cathode plate layers.
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto in view of Honda with further evidence from ShinEtsu and Engineering Toolbox as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Treger (USP 5,543,246). Treger is being cited and relied on for the first time with this office action. It’s use here was necessitated by the need for new reference Honda.
With respect to claim 2, Sakamoto and Honda set forth all the limitations of the claim, but did not specify the use of a urethane polymer. Honda taught conductive adhesives in general and soft silicones in specific. Treger teaches an alternate battery requiring a conductive adhesive and suggested the use of polyurethane based polymers for it (col. 6, ll. 45-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize the teaching of Treger for the battery of Sakamoto in view of Honda because the use of other, already proven conductive adhesives for the adhesive of Honda would require only ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to the disclosed deformation rate, Honda already disclosed the utility of “soft” adhesives which suggest pliability/deformation character is a desired result for the adhesive of Honda. Finding the desired level of deformation rate that balances adhesion with pliability would require only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto in view of Honda with further evidence from ShinEtsu and Engineering Toolbox as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Tajima et al (US 2016/0240325).
Sakamoto in view of Honda set forth all the limitations of claim 8 (see also the discussion in the rejection of claim 7), but did not explicitly recite the electrode structure have cathode and anode tabs protrude in the same protrusion direction. Tajima discloses that it is conventional in the art to have the tabs protrude in the same direction (fig. 1A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize the teaching of Tajima for the electrode structure of Sakamoto because having the tabs protrude in the same direction allows the electrode to be plugged in with a single connector element.
With respect to claim 12, Sakamoto already set forth multiple electrode structures that would read on the set forth first and second electrode structures. Furthermore, Honda rendered obvious first and second portions of the anode current collectors. However, the references did not explicitly suggest where the second portion of a first electrode structure would contact the first portion of the second electrode structure. However, Tajima further disclosed that the stacked cells similar to that of Sakamoto that numerous anode current collectors can be in electrical contact with each other by use of a common negative electrode lead. See fig. 2A and par. 0091. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize the structure of Tajima for the electrode structure of Sakamoto in view of Honda because it allows the various cell to be operated in parallel. Any such connection of anodes from one electrode structure to another would necessarily mean that the first and second portions of the various collectors are thereby in contact with each other.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto in view of Honda with further evidence from ShinEtsu and Engineering Toolbox as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Wang et al (US 2013/0045413).
Sakamoto in view of Honda set forth all the limitations of the claim but did not explicitly recite where the anode tab would be one the middle portion of current collector. Honda appears to be silent where the tabs for electrical connection would be. Wang teaches an alternate current collector to that of Honda where the current collector has first and second portions (204a, 204b) with a support structure 102 in the interior. Wang further discloses the current collector tab 206 can be located at the point where 204a is electrically connected to 204b, which is equivalent to the middle portion of Honda. See fig. 5 and par. 0032. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize the teaching of Wang for the electrode structure of Sakamoto in view of Honda because the utility of one known tab location spot for another requires only routine skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on 3/12/2026 are drawn to the argument that the proposed amendment of 3/12/2026 (not entered until the RCE of 4/21/2026) read free of Sakamoto and Honda. In so much as “insulator” is restricted to electrical insulation, the examiner would agrees. However, the examiner does not agree in view of the full scope of insulator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAJ K OLSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights