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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/17/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
The amendment/remarks submitted 07/17/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1, 5-8, and 10-13 are pending. Claims 2-4 and 9 are cancelled. Claims 12-13 are new. Claims 1, 5, 8, and 10-11 are amended. Claims 1, 5-8, and 10-13 are examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 11 recites “inclination angles of inclined portions of the plurality of steps formed in a direction away from the central portion of the electrode body in the stacking direction are different.” Claim 1, from which claim 11 depends, recites “a plurality of steps are formed in the flexible structure, wherein the plurality of steps are formed at different inclination angles with respect to a normal line of a surface formed in the first region, wherein among the plurality of steps, a step formed in a direction away from a central portion in the stacking direction is formed at an inclination angle smaller than an inclination angle of a step formed in the central portion.” Therefore, the limitations in claim 11 are necessarily present in claim 1 and claim 11 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5-8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/043907 A1 (“Jin” – machine translation of record dated 10/27/2025 cited herein) in view of US 2012/0040235 A1 (“Cho”) in view of JP 2014-127463 A (“Kitaura” – machine translation cited herein) and US 2011/0274955 A1 (“Park”).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Jin discloses a pouch-type secondary battery 10 comprising: an electrode assembly 200 in which an anode plate 210, a cathode plate 230, and a separator 220 are stacked; and a case 100 (“exterior member”) that houses the electrode assembly 200 (Abstract; Fig. 2).
The case 100 includes a first region facing a stack surface of an outermost layer of electrode assembly 200, and a second region formed between an edge of the first region and a peripheral edge of the exterior member. See the annotated Fig. 2, below. The second region is provided with a variable length portion 600a (“flexible structure”) (Fig. 2; [0030]). The variable length portion 600a is inherently capable of absorbing displacement of the electrode body as Jin discloses it allows the case 100 to expand ([0030]). As shown in Fig. 2, the variable length portion 600a comprises a plurality of steps.
PNG
media_image1.png
280
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Jin
Jin does not expressly disclose the battery is an all-solid-state battery comprising a solid electrolyte layer.
Kitaura discloses an all-solid-state battery (Abstract) and teaches that all-solid-state batteries, which replace the liquid electrolyte with a solid electrolyte to create a completely solid battery, do not use flammable organic solvents within the battery, which allows for simpler safety devices and is considered to offer advantages in terms of manufacturing costs and productivity ([0004]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a solid electrolyte in the battery of Jin because Kitaura teaches solid electrolytes allow for simpler safety devices and are considered to offer advantages in terms of manufacturing costs and productivity.
Jin discloses the peripheral edge of the case 100 is attached to an electrode lead 400, which is connected to the electrode assembly 200 (Fig. 2; [0032]-[0033]), but does not expressly disclose the peripheral edge is attached to the electrode lead at a central position in a stacking direction of the electrode body.
Park discloses a pouch type case for a battery (Abstract). Park discloses the pouch type case a space accommodating the electrode assembly formed in one of the upper and lower cases (Figs. 2, 10) or formed in both the upper and lower cases. (Fig. 11). The configuration where the accommodation portion is formed in one of the upper and lower cases is similar to the configuration disclosed by Jin. The configuration where the accommodation portion is formed in both the upper and lower cases results in the electrode tab being formed at a central position in a stacking direction of the electrode body (Fig. 11 of Park). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the battery such that the peripheral edge is attached to the electrode lead at a central position in a stacking direction of the electrode body because Park shows this to be an equivalent configuration known in the art that would yield predictable results.
In Jin, the plurality of steps would not have exactly the same inclination angle with respect to a normal line of a surface formed in the first region. Therefore, the inclination angle is considered to be different. However, Jin does not expressly disclose among the plurality of steps, a step formed in a direction away from a central portion in the stacking direction is formed at an inclination angle smaller than an inclination angle of a step formed in the central portion. However, it is the opinion of the Office that this represents a change in shape that a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the plurality of steps was significant. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 5, modified Jin discloses the all-solid-state battery of claim 1. As shown in Fig. 2 of Jin, at least a part of a step formed at a position close to a surface of the electrode assembly 200 among the plurality of steps abuts on a side surface of the electrode assembly 200 housed in the case 100.
Regarding claim 6, modified Jin discloses the all-solid-state battery of claim 1. As shown in Fig. 2 of Jin, a stack surface of an outermost layer of the electrode assembly 200 abuts on a region surface formed in the first region.
Regarding claim 7, modified Jin discloses the all-solid-state battery of claim 6. As shown in Fig. 2 of Jin, the region surface formed in the first region is parallel to a stack surface of an outermost layer of the electrode assembly 200.
Regarding claim 8, Jin discloses a pouch-type secondary battery 10 and a method of making the battery, wherein the battery comprises: an electrode assembly 200 in which an anode plate 210, a cathode plate 230, and a separator 220 are stacked; and a case 100 (“exterior member”) that houses the electrode assembly 200 (Abstract; Fig. 2).
The case 100 includes a first region facing a stack surface of an outermost layer of electrode assembly 200, and a second region formed between an edge of the first region and a peripheral edge of the exterior member. See the annotated Fig. 2, below. The second region is provided with a variable length portion 600a (“flexible structure”) (Fig. 2; [0030]). The variable length portion 600a is inherently capable of absorbing displacement of the electrode body as Jin discloses it allows the case 100 to expand ([0030]). As shown in Fig. 2, the variable length portion 600a comprises a plurality of steps.
PNG
media_image1.png
280
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Jin
Given the structure of the variable length portion 600a which comprises a plurality of steps (Fig. 2), it is understood that the plurality of steps are necessarily formed by pressing. However, even if the pressing is not inherent, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the plurality of steps by pressing as pressing is a well-known technique to bend battery pouches.
Jin does not expressly disclose the battery is an all-solid-state battery comprising a solid electrolyte layer.
Kitaura discloses an all-solid-state battery (Abstract) and teaches that all-solid-state batteries, which replace the liquid electrolyte with a solid electrolyte to create a completely solid battery, do not use flammable organic solvents within the battery, which allows for simpler safety devices and is considered to offer advantages in terms of manufacturing costs and productivity ([0004]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a solid electrolyte in the battery of Jin because Kitaura teaches solid electrolytes allow for simpler safety devices and are considered to offer advantages in terms of manufacturing costs and productivity.
Jin discloses the peripheral edge of the case 100 is attached to an electrode lead 400, which is connected to the electrode assembly 200 (Fig. 2; [0032]-[0033]), but does not expressly disclose the peripheral edge is attached to the electrode lead at a central position in a stacking direction of the electrode body.
Park discloses a pouch type case for a battery (Abstract). Park discloses the pouch type case a space accommodating the electrode assembly formed in one of the upper and lower cases (Figs. 2, 10) or formed in both the upper and lower cases. (Fig. 11). The configuration where the accommodation portion is formed in one of the upper and lower cases is similar to the configuration disclosed by Jin. The configuration where the accommodation portion is formed in both the upper and lower cases results in the electrode tab being formed at a central position in a stacking direction of the electrode body (Fig. 11 of Park). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the battery such that the peripheral edge is attached to the electrode lead at a central position in a stacking direction of the electrode body because Park shows this to be an equivalent configuration known in the art that would yield predictable results.
In Jin, the plurality of steps would not have exactly the same inclination angle with respect to a normal line of a surface formed in the first region. Therefore, the inclination angle is considered to be different. However, Jin does not expressly disclose among the plurality of steps, a step formed in a direction away from a central portion in the stacking direction is formed at an inclination angle smaller than an inclination angle of a step formed in the central portion. However, it is the opinion of the Office that this represents a change in shape that a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the plurality of steps was significant. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 10, modified Jin discloses the all-solid-state battery of claim 1. Jin discloses the positive plate 210 comprises a positive current collector ma a positive active material layer coated on both sides thereof ([0031]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 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 the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 12 and 13 each further specify the plurality of steps in terms of the successive inclination angles and radii at the corner, i.e. radii of curvature, (not repeated here for brevity). The prior art does not disclose or render obvious the combination of the features of claims 12 or 13 with the independent claims.
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment to the claims, the objection to claim 9 and rejections under 35 USC 112(a) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/17/2026, regarding the 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal argument is that the claimed configuration achieves unexpected results. See pg. 10 of the remarks. However, applicant’s arguments are unsupported by evidence. Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Examples of statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration include statements regarding unexpected results. See MPEP 716.01(c).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2013/180541 A1 (“Kim”) discloses a battery cell comprising an electrode assembly embedded in a battery case, wherein the electrode assembly and battery case form a step structure (Abstract; Figs. 17-20). As shown in Fig. 18, the curvature of the steps may differ from each other. As shown in Fig. 19, the shape of the corners may differ from each other. However, the stepped structure of Kim matches the shape of the electrode assembly and is therefore not capable of absorbing displacement of the electrode body as claimed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Scott Carrico whose telephone number is (571)270-5504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:15AM-6PM 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
Robert Scott Carrico
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/Robert S Carrico/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
