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 .
Status of the Claims
The amendment/remarks submitted 03/28/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-11 are pending. Claims 10-11 are new. Claims 1-2 and 8 are amended. Claims 1-11 are examined herein.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a central portion” should be replaced with “the central portion” to maintain proper antecedent basis with claim 8. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, the claims each recite “a bellows structure.” However, this does not appear to be fully supported in the specification. The amendment to the claims replaced “displacement absorbing portion” with “bellows structure.” The term “bellows” is not used in the instant specification and encompasses structure not disclosed in the specification, such as a pleated configuration. Claims 2-7 and 9-11 depend from claims 1 or 8 and are rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “the positive electrode layer is stacked on both surfaces of a positive electrode current collector.” However, in the specification the term “positive electrode layer” is described as comprising “a positive electrode active material layer 111 and a positive electrode current collector 112.” See the specification as filed at paragraph [0020]. Thus, in the terms described in the specification, the positive electrode layer could not be stacked on both surfaces of a positive electrode current collector as the positive electrode current collector is a component of the positive electrode layer. It is noted that the specification describes “the positive electrode active material layer 111 of the positive electrode layer 21 and the positive electrode active material layer 111 of the positive electrode layer 23 are stacked on an upper surface side and a lower surface side of the positive electrode current collector 112, respectively.” For the purpose of this Office action, the claim will be interpreted consistent with this disclosure.
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 1-11 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 claim 1, 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 (“bellows 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]).
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.
Regarding claim 2, modified Jin discloses the all-solid-state battery of claim 1. As shown in Fig. 2 of Jin, the variable length portion 600a comprises a plurality of steps.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, modified Jin discloses the all-solid-state battery of claims 2 and 1. 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.
Regarding claim 4, modified Jin discloses the all-solid-state battery of claim 3. 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 3. 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 (“bellows 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]).
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.
Regarding claim 9, modified Jin discloses the method of claim 8. As shown in Fig. 2 of Jin, first through fourth steps are formed. As modified by Park, the first step is formed at a central portion and the second through fourth steps are successively formed in a direction away from the central portion and inside as compared to the first step.
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]).
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment to claims 1 and 8, the rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 6-10 in particular arguments (a) and (c), filed 03/28/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) or 103 over Okamoto have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of WO 2018/043907 A1 (“Jin”).
Regarding applicant’s arguments to Jin: While claim 1 was not rejected over Jin in the previous Office action, since this Office action contains a rejection over Jin, the arguments to Jin are address below.
In response to applicant's argument, in section (a), that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a symmetric arrangement of the bellows structure, previously the displacement absorbing portion) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It is noted that while the lead tab is recited at a central position in the stacking direction, the bellows structure (or displacement absorbing portion) is not required to be on both sides of the lead tab. Furthermore, applicant’s arguments to asymmetric stress are unsupported by evidence.
Applicant argues that Jin does not disclose the first and second regions as claimed. Section (b). The Office respectfully disagrees. See the annotated Fig. 2 of Jin below.
PNG
media_image1.png
280
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Jin
Applicant argues that Jin does not disclose a bellows structure in the second region. Section (c). The Office respectfully disagrees. As clearly shown in the annotated Fig. 2 of Jin, the second region is provided with a variable length portion 600a (“bellows structure”). 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 to applicant’s argument in section (d), US 2011/0274955 A1 (“Park”) is presented for this feature. See the rejection above.
In response to applicant's argument, section (f), that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., uniform suppression) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s arguments to the combination of Okamoto and Jin are not pertinent to the rejection above as Okamoto is not relied upon. The arguments specific to Jin are addressed in the new ground of rejection and response to arguments above.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP 2019-139872 A (“Nagatomi”) discloses a secondary battery comprising exterior body accommodating a power generation element. The exterior body comprises a first surface, a second surface, and an outer peripheral portion 32, 42, 52 having a fold structure (Fig. 3), a bellows structure (Fig. 4), or a torsion structure (Fig. 5).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights