ALL SOLID-STATE BATTERY UNIT
DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to communication filed on 3/18/2026:
Claim 1 has been amended; claims 7-8 have been newly added. No new matter has been entered.
Previous rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-6 under 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn due to amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/2026 have been fully considered and are considered persuasive in regards to claims 1, 2, and 4-6. However, they are moot in regards to newly added claims 7 and 8 based on grounds of new rejection.
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 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a thermal expandable material is a resin material, does not reasonably provide enablement for a type of resin material. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
This is a scope of enablement rejection. One of ordinary skill in the art would have to engage in undue experimentation in order to make and use applicants claimed invention. See, In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Circ. 1988); see also, MPEP § 2164.01. MPEP 2164.01(a) sets forth the following factors, summarized from In re Wands, which should be considered when determining whether the claimed invention would require undue experimentation. The factors are as follows:
(A) the breadth of the claims; (B) the nature of the invention; (C) the state of the prior art; (D) the level of one of ordinary skill; (E) the level of predictability in the art; (F) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) the existence of working examples; (H) and the quality of experimentation needed to make and use the invention based on the content of the disclose.
The factors are addressed in order. As to factor A, the claim broadly recites a resin material for use as a thermal expandable material, wherein this resin material could be at least a thousand different possible combinations. No specific examples of the workability of any other resin material are given. Therefore, this factor militates against a finding of enablement.
As to factors B and E, the field of material science is an unpredictable art. Thus the formulation of compounds containing different elements from those that have been optimized experimentally may present different problems. In addition, the formulation of resin materials requires different chemical formulations. It is not as simple as mixing each component into a beaker. As such one of ordinary skill in the art would not know what problems might arise when formulating an active material using the elements for which applicants have not presented experimental data to support. This factor militates against a finding of enablement.
As to factor C, the closest prior arts of record are vast being that the limitation of “a resin material” is itself a broad limitation. As such, this factor militates against finding of enablement.
As to factor D, the level of ordinary skill in the art would be a person holding a bachelors degree in chemical engineering, material science, or chemistry. This factor does not weigh for or against a finding of enablement.
As to factors F and G, the applicant’s specification provides no examples of a resin material as a thermal expandable material.
As to factor H, because of the unpredictability of the material science field, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to perform experimentation on each and every combination of the thousands possible. Such a degree of testing is undue experimentation. This factor militates against a finding of enablement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto et al. (US 2019/0229364 A1), Hermann et al. (US 2014/0093760 A1), and Sasaki et al. (JP 2020-126767 A) and further in view of Taniuchi et al. (US 2021/0119250 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Sakamoto et al. teach an all-solid-state battery unit (Paragraphs 0029-0038 disclose solid state battery unit cells.), comprising:
an all-solid-state battery module in which a plurality of all solid-state battery cells are laminated (Paragraph 0039; Fig. 1, element 14 discloses an exterior body covering each unit cell, element 10 which is comprised of a laminate material.). However, Sakamoto et al. do not teach an alternating temperature unit configured to heat or cool the all solid-state battery module; and
a control unit configured to control the alternating temperature unit,
wherein the control unit controls the alternating temperature unit depending on either or both of values of a State of Charge of the all solid-state battery module and a temperature of the all solid-state battery module.
Hermann et al. teach a solid-state battery (Paragraph 0062) comprising an alternating temperature unit configured to heat or cool the all solid-state battery module (Paragraph 0081; Fig. 1 discloses a thermal management system comprising a heater, element 20, and a reservoir which serves as a cooling system.); and a control unit configured to control the alternating temperature unit (Paragraphs 0043, 0062, 0071 and 0083 disclose temperature control can be done via a battery management system (BMS), element 14 in fig. 1.).
Further, Hermann et al. teach wherein a surface pressure increasing member composed of thermal expandable materials is formed to come in contact with the all solid-state battery cell in the all solid-state battery module (Paragraph 0148; Fig. 5B disclose a battery stack, element 501. of unit cells, element 503, in which void spaces or compressible regions, element 505, are provided between the individual unit cells, element 503, to account for volumetric expansion during charge or discharge. Further, paragraph 0156 discloses the compression members comprise thermal expansion materials.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sakamoto with Hermann in order to provide safe and efficient operation of the elevated temperature batteries of the primary energy pack.
However, neither Sakamoto nor Hermann et al. teach wherein the control unit controls the alternating temperature unit depending on either or both of values of a State of Charge of the all solid-state battery module and a temperature of the all solid-state battery module.
Sasaki et al. teach an all-solid-state battery (Paragraph 0013). Further, the battery comprises an electronic control unit which controls temperature in the battery (Paragraph 0016). The control unit controls the alternating temperature unit depending on either or both of values of a State of Charge of the all-solid-state battery module and a temperature of the all-solid-state battery module (Paragraph 0027 discloses when the SOC of a battery is below a determined value, the ECU charges the battery until the SOC exceeds the predetermined value. Then, if the temperature is below a reference temperature corresponding to the SOC, the ECU raises the temperature via an auxiliary heater.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sakamoto and Hermann with Sasaki in order to increase output in electric power.
However, neither Sakamoto, Hermann, or Sasaki et al. teach wherein the thermal expandable material is a resin material.
Taniuchi et al. teach a thermal expandable material comprising a resin material (Paragraphs 0080, 0086-0087; Fig. 3a disclose an expansion material, element 120, comprises polymer resins.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sakamoto, Hermann, and Sasaki with Taniuchi so that moisture inside the solid-state battery can be brought close to 0% at the same time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, and 4-6 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the subject matter of claim 1 is not disclosed in the prior art of record. In particular, wherein the surface pressure increasing member is configured to increase a load applied to the all solid-state battery cells, as a volume of the surface pressure increasing member is increased due to a thermal expansion by an increase of temperature, so as to lower an internal resistance of the all solid-state battery cells.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 June 15th, 2026
Prosecution Insights