Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/139,571

ELECTRODE LAMINATE MANUFACTURING METHOD, ALL-SOLID-STATE BATTERY MANUFACTURING METHOD, ELECTRODE LAMINATE, AND ALL-SOLID-STATE BATTERY

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 26, 2023
Examiner
PATEL, SUHANI JITENDRA
Art Unit
1783
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Panasonic Holdings Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
6 granted / 7 resolved
+20.7% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
51
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
§103
57.4%
+17.4% vs TC avg
§102
23.8%
-16.2% vs TC avg
§112
13.1%
-26.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 7 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 5-7 in the reply filed on 1/7/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/7/2026. 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. Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiki et al (US 11799171 B2) in view of Kelley et al (US 2015/0318539 A1). Regarding Claim 5, Fujiki teaches a solid state battery comprising a cathode (i.e. first layer), an anode, and solid electrolyte layer (i.e. second layer). Fujiki also teaches that the cathode active material layer 12 is pressed together with the solid electrolyte layer 30 (Column 14, Lines 57-60). In the instant specification, the method of making the electrode laminate can utilize a rolling press machine (Paragraph 0051). Similarly, Fujiki also teaches the use of a roll press as a pressing method (Column 14, Lines 63-67). The pressed assembly of cathode active layer and the solid electrolyte layer is akin to the electrode laminate. Hence, Fujiki teaches an electrode laminate comprising a first layer and a second layer, and that the second layer is laminated on the first layer. PNG media_image1.png 537 331 media_image1.png Greyscale Fujiki also teaches that the cathode material is made of porous material by defining a relative density of the cathode active material (Column 9, Lines 46-51). Fujiki states that the theoretical density is the density of the material with zero porosity, whereas relative density is the measured density/theoretical density. Fujiki states that the relative density is about 60% or more (Column 9, Lines 32-40) in which case the measured density is 60% (or more) of the theoretical density. This is possible when the cathode material is a porous type material. Fujiki teaches the cathode material as porous, but does not teach that the maximum pore diameter of the first layer is 0.215 to 0.240 µm. However, Kelley teaches a cathode that is porous and is defined by pores having cross-sectional diameters of between 0.1 to 10 µm (Paragraph 0055). This range includes the claimed range of having a maximum pore diameter of the first layer as 0.25 to 0.24 µm. Kelley teaches an electrochemical cell comprising a cathode 212 and an anode 216, and electrolyte 214 with a separator (Paragraph 0059). Kelley also teaches an electrode that has a root mean square surface roughness of less than 0.5 micrometer (Paragraph 0042). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have maximum pore diameter as shown by Kelley in the porous cathode material of Fujiki in order to facilitate the fabrication of an electrode while maintaining smoothness and producing sufficient amount of electronic current (Paragraph 0021). Fujiki does not specifically teach about the bubble density of the second layer being less than 6 bubbles/cm2. However, there exist analogies between Fujiki and the instant invention that support the presence of the bubble density on the second layer. Fujiki teaches that the interface between the cathode and the solid electrolyte layer has a roughness of 0.2 or 0.1 µm or less (Column 12, Lines 20-37). This is akin to the roughness of the surface of the first layer in the instant specification. The instant specification states that the bubble density is measured by counting the number of bubbles formed on the principal face of the second layer following pressing, and then dividing by area. The instant specification states that the formation of bubbles and the resultant bubble density on the second layer is dependent on the roughness of the first layer (Paragraph 11; instant spec), and maximum pore diameter (Paragraph 0016). Since, Fujiki teaches the roughness of the electrode layer, and the combined teachings of Fujiki and Kelley teach the maximum pore diameter of the claimed invention, hence in the electrode laminate described above, bubbles would be formed in a similar fashion as the claimed invention, and the bubble density would be observed on the second layer in the same fashion. Per MPEP 2112.01; “when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent”. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to observe a bubble density of less than 6 bubbles/cm2 by combining the electrode characteristics of Fujiki and Kelley. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the maximum pore diameter as shown by Kelley in the porous cathode material of Fujiki in order to facilitate the fabrication of an electrode while maintaining smoothness and producing sufficient amount of electronic current (Paragraph 0021). Regarding Claim 6, Fujiki teaches a cathode active material layer 12 (i.e. first layer), and a solid electrolyte layer 30 (i.e. second layer). PNG media_image1.png 537 331 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 7, Fujiki teaches an all-solid state secondary battery that comprises cathode active material layer 12, solid electrolyte layer 30, and anode active material layer 22. Fujiki also teaches that the cathode active material layer 12 is pressed together with the solid electrolyte layer 30 (Column 14, Lines 57-60) to form the claimed electrode laminate. References of Interest Varanasi et al (US 2023/0290961 A1) Lim et al (US 2024/0113394 A1) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached on 571-272-8519. 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. /SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1783 /MARIA V EWALD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 26, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12531272
Non-Aqueous Electrolyte for Lithium Secondary Battery, and Lithium Secondary Battery Comprising Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12500268
NONAQUEOUS ELECTROLYTE ADDITIVE, NONAQUEOUS ELECTROLYTE CONTAINING SAME, POWER STORAGE DEVICE, AND ELECTRIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Patent 12482886
BATTERY AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 25, 2025
Patent 12456755
ELECTROLYTE FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY, AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY COMPRISING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 28, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 4 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+20.0%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 7 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month