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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/30/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. IDS statements of previous office actions have already been considered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 18 have been amended; support for claims 1 and 18 are found in original claim 7, the amendments to claims 2-3, 5, 7 were minor editorial amendments and are found in at least Figure 1, [0052,0057,0079] of the instant specification.
Claims 19-20 have been added, support is found in Figure 6 and [0046] for claim 13, [0033-0034] for claim 14 and [0047] for claim 15. No new matter has been added.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined on the merits in this office action.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-11, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka et al. (US 2021/0328292 A1) in view of Tadano (US 2009/0311598 A1) and Jung (KR 20160051055 A).
Regarding claim 1, Otsuka discloses an all solid secondary battery (all solid battery 1), comprising:
An electrode assembly including a cathode layer, and anode layer, and a solid electrolyte layer between the anode layer and the cathode layer (Figure 1; [0046] positive electrode 30, negative electrode 40, solid electrolyte layer 50); and
A porous member on one surface or opposite surface of the electrode assembly (conductive porous member 80),
Wherein the porous member includes
A porous cushioning layer (conductive porous member 80).
Otsuka is silent with respect to wherein the porous cushioning layer includes a polymer material or a rubber material, instead discloses a conductive graphite material.
Jung discloses a lithium sulfur battery having multilayered structure and is within the same field of endeavor of batteries. Jung discloses a porous layer being made of a metal mesh material and at least one conductive polymer material such as polyaniline, polythiophene, polyacetylene, polypyrrole and the like ([0015]) and is used as a space to reduce overvoltage and improve the energy density of the battery ([0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to select the materials for the conductive porous member to be made of the material of the conductive porous layer made of a metal mesh material and conductive polymer material such as polyacetylene as taught by Jung to reduce overvoltage and improve the energy density of the battery. It would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to select the material taught by Jung as both are conductive materials that can be compressed. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Otsuka is silent with respect to an additional layer being applied on the porous cushioning layer.
Tadano discloses an electrode with a porous protective film applied to an electrode such that an excellent safety and an excellent discharge capacity maintenance factor are realized ([0023-0025]) Thus the porous protective film can be applied to the electrode to achieve excellent safety and discharge capacity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the porous protective film of Tadano into the battery of Otsuka such as being coated on at least one surface of the conductive porous member to achieve excellent safety and excellent discharge capacity for the electrode and battery as a whole. The resulting structure would render obvious the porous multilayer as the porous protective film of Tadano can be applied on the conductive porous member of Otsuka and can be in contact with the electrode in order to provide protection and safety to the battery. Thus all of the claim limitations of claim 1 are taught through the combination.
Regarding claim 2, modified Otsuka teaches all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Otsuka further discloses wherein the porous multilayer member is on the anode layer (Otsuka Figure 3; porous member 80 is on one or both electrodes and is seen to be on the negative electrode), and
The cathode layer, the anode layer and the porous multilayer member are parallel to each other (Otsuka Figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, modified Otsuka teaches all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Otsuka further discloses wherein an elastic modulus of the porous cushioning layer is smaller than an elastic modulus of each of the porous protecting layer and the solid electrolyte layer (Otsuka discloses wherein the conductive porous member can absorb the pressing force to relax a force that exerts on an electrode by being compressed and then restored in response to the expansion and contraction of the stack during charging and discharging of the battery [0026-0027], thus the conductive porous member is easily and designed to be compressed and thus would have a small elastic modulus, while the protective film of Tadano is not designed to be compressed as it is used to safety and discharge capacity maintenance and the solid electrolyte is not designed to be compressed and thus would be expected to have a higher elastic modulus).
Modified Otsuka is silent with respect to the elastic modulus of the porous cushioning layer being at least ten times smaller than the elastic modulus of the solid electrolyte layer, however, that material are similar to that as claimed, however, the examiner cannot ascertain if the resulting structure would have the same properties. It is the examiner’s opinion that the same materials used for the porous cushioning layer and solid electrolyte layer would result in the same properties such that the elastic modulus of the porous cushioning layer is at least ten times smaller than the solid electrolyte layer. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
Regarding claim 5, Modified Otsuka discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Otsuka further discloses wherein the porous cushioning layer can include a porous foam and be includes a closed pore or open pore (Otsuka Figure 3; [0052] conducted foamed base material can be the conductive porous member although the effectiveness of the shape restoration is decreased and is within the battery; Jung [0019] porous layer can be a foam).
Regarding claim 7, modified Otsuka discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Jung discloses wherein the porous cushioning material can be made of a polymer material such as polyurethane ([0034] polyurethane can be used in the porous layer).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Otsuka discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Tadano further discloses wherein the porous protecting layer is a non-adhesive layer (Tadano discloses wherein the porous protective film is disposed on surfaces of the electrode and does not teach wherein the porous protecting layer is an adhesive).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Otsuka discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Tadano further discloses wherein the porous protecting layer includes a polyolefin polymer or a cellulose polymer ([0239 porous protective film can be made of hydroxyethyl cellulose).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Otsuka discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Tadano further discloses wherein the porous protecting layer is a porous film ([0239] porous protective film), is woven or nonwoven fabric ([0229] protective film is added as a slurry and can be either woven or nonwoven; [0094] nonwoven materials), the porous film includes cellulose nanofibers ([0071] porous protective film containing fine particles that can be cellulose [0229]), and the porous film has a single layer structure of a multilayer structure (Figures 2-3;21C can be a single or multi-layer porous protective film).
Regarding claim 16, Modified Otsuka discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Otsuka further discloses an electrode assembly stack including an electrode assembly (Figure 1),
At least one of the porous multilayer member disposed among the electrode assemblies, and wherein the thickness of the porous multilayer member is smaller than a thickness of the electrode assemblies.
Otsuka is silent with respect to multiple electrode assemblies, however, it would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to duplicate the electrode assembly as seen in Figure 3 and have the porous multilayer member between each electrode assembly as a simple duplication of electrode assemblies of Otsuka. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 17, Modified Otsuka discloses all the claim limitations of claim 16. Modified Otsuka further discloses pressure plate on facing surfaces of the electrode assembly stack (sealing can 20 and outer can 10 can read as the pressure plate of Figure 3), wherein:
Each of a plurality of the porous multilayer members I between adjacent electrode assemblies of the plurality of electrode assemblies (See modification of claim 16 as a plurality of porous multilayer members can be provided between each electrode assembly).
Regarding claim 18, Otsuka discloses a method of manufacturing an all solid secondary battery (all solid battery 1), comprising:
Providing an electrode assembly including a cathode layer, and anode layer, and a solid electrolyte layer between the anode layer and the cathode layer (Figure 1; [0046] positive electrode 30, negative electrode 40, solid electrolyte layer 50; claim 9); and
Placing a porous member on one surface or opposite surface of the electrode assembly (conductive porous member 80; claim 9),
Wherein the porous member includes
A porous cushioning layer (conductive porous member 80).
Otsuka is silent with respect to wherein the porous cushioning layer includes a polymer material or a rubber material, instead discloses a conductive graphite material.
Jung discloses a lithium sulfur battery having multilayered structure and is within the same field of endeavor of batteries. Jung discloses a porous layer being made of a metal mesh material and at least one conductive polymer material such as polyaniline, polythiophene, polyacetylene, polypyrrole and the like ([0015]) and is used as a space to reduce overvoltage and improve the energy density of the battery ([0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to select the materials for the conductive porous member to be made of the material of the conductive porous layer made of a metal mesh material and conductive polymer material such as polyacetylene as taught by Jung to reduce overvoltage and improve the energy density of the battery. It would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to select the material taught by Jung as both are conductive materials that can be compressed. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Otsuka is silent with respect to an additional layer being applied on the porous cushioning layer.
Tadano discloses an electrode with a porous protective film applied to an electrode such that an excellent safety and an excellent discharge capacity maintenance factor are realized ([0023-0025]) Thus the porous protective film can be applied to the electrode to achieve excellent safety and discharge capacity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the porous protective film of Tadano into the battery of Otsuka such as being coated on at least one surface of the conductive porous member to achieve excellent safety and excellent discharge capacity for the electrode and battery as a whole. The resulting structure would render obvious the porous multilayer as the porous protective film of Tadano can be applied on the conductive porous member of Otsuka and can be in contact with the electrode in order to provide protection and safety to the battery. Thus all of the claim limitations of claim 18 are taught through the combination.
Regarding claim 19, Modified Otsuka discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Otsuka discloses wherein one or both surfaces of the porous cushioning layer can have a porous protecting layer and wherein the thickness of the porous cushioning layer is 1.5 times to 12 times thicker than each of the two porous protecting layers (Otsuka [0055] conductive porous sheet can have a thickness of 0.1-1 mm; Tadano [0078] thickness of the porous protective film is 0.1-200 micrometers; and thus the porous cushioning layer can be 0.5 times thinner to 10,000 times thicker than the porous cushioning layers). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 20, modified Otsuka discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Jung further discloses wherein the porous layer can contain a polyurethan foam which is a non-conductive material ([0034]).
Claims 4, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka et al. (US 2021/0328292 A1) in view of Tadano (US 2009/0311598 A1) and Jung (KR 20160051055 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ozaki et al. (US 2015/0203686 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Otsuka teaches all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Otsuka further discloses wherein the thickness of the porous cushioning layer is greater (Otsuka [0055] conductive porous sheet has a thickness of 0.1-1 mm which correlates to 100-1000 micrometers) than a thickness of the porous protecting layer (Tadano [0078] porous protective film is within the range of 0.1-200 micrometers), and
the porous cushioning layer has a thickness of 1-200 micrometers (Otsuka [0055] conductive porous sheet has a thickness of 0.1-1 mm which correlates to 100-1000 micrometers). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Modified Otsuka is silent with respect to the air permeability being 1000 sec/100 cc or more.
Ozaki discloses a heat resistant layer that is applied within batteries. Ozaki discloses wherein the porous film has an air permeability between 50-2000 seconds/100 cc as a permeability of more than 2000 second can lead to deterioration of the ion permeability of the laminated film and load characteristics of the battery ([0098]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the air permeability of Otsuka’s conductive porous sheet to have an air permeability of 50-2000 seconds/ 100 cc as taught by Ozaki in order to allow for ions to permeate through the porous film while also preventing the deterioration of the porous sheet as taught by Ozaki.
Regarding claim 6, modified Otsuka discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Otsuka is silent with respect to wherein the porous cushioning layer is an adhesive layer.
Ozaki discloses a porous film that is applied within batteries. Ozaki discloses wherein the porous film can be an adhesive film ([0100]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the porous sheet of Otsuka to be an adhesive porous film as disclosed by Ozaki. A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the porous sheet to be an adhesive porous sheet in order to adequately adhere the porous sheet to the electrode and create a secure connection between the porous sheet and the electrode.
Regarding claim 9, Modified Otsuka discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Tadano further discloses wherein the porous protecting layer has a thickness of 1-50 micrometers (Tadano [0078] porous protective film is within the range of 0.1-200 micrometers and claim 10), an air permeability of 1000 sec/100cc or less (claim 9; air permeability of the porous protective film is 3-600 sec/100ml), a porosity of 5-95% and a pore size of 0.01-20 micrometers.
Modified Otsuka fails to disclose wherein the porosity is 5-95% and the pore size of the porous protecting layer is 0.01-20 micrometers.
Ozaki discloses a heat resistant layer that is applied within batteries. Ozaki discloses wherein the porous film has a porosity between 20-80% by volume wherein if the porosity is less than 20 then the electrolyte holding amount is decreased and if the porosity if more than 80% than it may be insufficient to shut down when high temperature arises ([0078]) and discloses wherein the pore diameter is 3 micrometers or less ([0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the porosity and pore size to be between 20-80 % porosity and 3 micrometers or less as for pore diameter as taught by Ozaki in order to effectively charge the battery and shutdown the battery when high temperature arises as disclosed by Ozaki. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 9.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka et al. (US 2021/0328292 A1) in view of Tadano (US 2009/0311598 A1) and Jung (KR 20160051055 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2009/0136844 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Otsuka discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Otsuka further discloses wherein the anode layer includes an anode current collector and a first anode active material on the anode current collector ([0076-0081]negative electrode current collector and active material),
The first anode active material includes an anode active material and a binder([0076-0077] active material and binder).
Modified Otsuka is silent with respect to the active material having a particle shape and an average particle diameter being 4 micrometers or less.
Watanabe discloses a battery structure and is analogous with the instant invention. Watanabe discloses wherein the negative electrode active material can have a particle shape with an average particle diameter of 10 micrometers or less with 2 micrometers or less being preferrable in order to reduce the electrode resistance and have a thinned active material ([0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to adjust the size/shape of the active material of Otsuka such that the active material have a particle shape and a particle diameter of less than 10 micrometers in order to reduce the electrode resistance and thickness of the battery as a whole as taught by Watanabe. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Otsuka discloses all the claim limitations of claim 12. Otsuka further discloses wherein the anode active material includes at least one selected from a carbonaceous anode active material and a metal or metalloid anode active material including Sn or carbon ([0076] active material can contain Sn or carbon).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka et al. (US 2021/0328292 A1) in view of Tadano (US 2009/0311598 A1), Jung (KR 20160051055 A) and Watanabe et al. (US 2009/0136844 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (US 2019/0267664 A1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Otsuka discloses all the claim limitations of claim 12. Otsuka discloses a single active material layer and is silent with respect to a second anode active material layer being plated between the current collector and first active material layer.
Lin discloses an electrode and lithium ion battery. Lin further discloses wherein the negative electrode can have a stack of multiple active materials such that a first active material is applied to the current collector and contains lithium alloy and wherein a second active material is applied to the first active material layer (Figure 2; [0005]) and to increase the energy density of the battery ([0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to provide a second active material layer that contains a lithium alloy onto the current collector and between the current collector and the first active material to create a layered active material for the negative electrode in order to increase the energy density of the battery. The second active material can be coated onto the current collector and that would read on the plating layer as plating has produces a thin layer made of metal. Thus all of the claim limitations of claim 14 are rendered obvious in view of the combination.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka et al. (US 2021/0328292 A1), Jung (KR 20160051055 A) and Tadano (US 2009/0311598 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Honda et al. (US 2019/0363317 A1).
Regarding claim 15, modified Otsuka discloses all of the claim limitations of claim 1. Otsuka discloses wherein the cathode and anode has active material coated on the current collectors and are in contact with the solid electrolyte layers, however, is silent with respect to a plurality of electrode layers and the specific stacking as claimed, however, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to duplicate the battery layers of Otsuka to contain multiple electrode layers such that the solid electrolyte is provided between the anode and cathode of adjacent layers to prevent shorting of the cell. The modification would read on the stacking and orientation of the layers as claimed. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Additionally, Otsuka is silent with respect to the porous multilayer member having a larger area than the cathode active material layers, however, it would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to adjust the relative sizes of the porous multilayer member to have a larger area than the cathode active materials absent evidentiary data to the contrary. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Modified Otsuka is further silent with respect to inactive members surrounding the sides of the cathode layer between the solid electrolyte layers.
Honda discloses a battery having a solid electrolyte within an electrode stack. Honda further discloses wherein electrically insulating member 2010 are provided around the cell stack to further insulate the side surfaces of the battery and allows the stacked state of the battery cells to be firmly maintained ( [0154]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the electrically insulating members 2010 of Honda into the battery of Otsuka and around the stacked battery to seal the battery and cover the side surfaces of the batteries to prevent shorting of the cells and firmly maintain the cells in the stacked state as taught by Honda. Thus all of the claim limitations of claim 15 are rendered obvious in view of the combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended claims overcome the rejection of record because the prior art fails to disclose the cushioning layer being made of a polymer material or a rubber material as Otsuka discloses a conductive porous sheet used to maintain conductivity between the stack and the battery container while Ozaki discloses a non-conductive polyolefin. This argument is noted, however, the rejection has been updated rendering the arguments moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yawata et al. (US 2020/0373565 A1)-discloses an all solid state secondary battery having a buffer layer 11 formed on each side of the laminate structure such that the laminate can be made to enter a pressurized state through the buffer layer.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 pm EST.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights