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 .
2. The Applicant's amendments filed on June 30, 2025, were received. Claims 1-5 have been amended. Claims 1-22 have been cancelled. Claims 31-34 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 49 and 50 have been added as new. Therefore, Claims 1-4 are pending in this office action.
3. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action issued on April 20, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. Information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted March 24, 2026, has been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. The rejection of Claims 1-7 and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanda et al. (JP2012-099315A), has been overcome based on the arguments presented on pages 2-5 of the Remarks dated December 29, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. The rejection of Claims 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanda et al. (JP2012-099315A), as applied to Claims 1-7 and 10-12 above, has been overcome based on the arguments presented on pages 2-5 of the Remarks dated December 29, 2025.
7. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanda et al. (JP2012-099315A) in view of Raman et al. (US 2017/0256367 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Kanda et al. disclose an all-solid-state secondary battery mixture, comprising a solid-state electrolyte and a binder, wherein the binder is a polytetrafluoroethylene resin (paragraphs 0013-0017, 0024). Kanada et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the polytetrafluoroethylene resin has a fibrous structure with a fibril diameter (median value) of 70 nm or less.
Raman et al. disclose an energy storage device (100) comprising a first electrode (102) having a first electrode film (112) (an upper electrode film) on a first surface of a first current collector (108), wherein the first electrode film (112) has a mixture comprising a binder material and a carbon (paragraphs 0037-0040). Raman et al. disclose wherein the binder material includes one or more fibrillizable binder components, such as suitable fibrillizable polymeric materials, such as polytetrafluoroethylene (paragraph 0041). Raman et al. also disclose wherein the fibrillizable binder particles have a fibril diameter of less than about 0.01 µm (paragraph 0028), which meets the claimed limitation of a fibril diameter (median value) of 70 nm or less. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the polytetrafluoroethylene resin of Kanada et al. to include a fibrous structure with a fibril diameter (median value) of 70 nm or less, because Raman et al. teach that this fibrous material allow for increased binder adherence and film strength, as well as, a number of electrical and/or mechanical performance advantages (paragraphs 0023-0024).
With regard to Claim 2, Kanda et al. disclose the modified all-solid-state secondary battery mixture which is for a lithium ion all-solid-state secondary battery (paragraph 0016).
With regard to Claim 3, Kanda et al. disclose the modified all-solid-state secondary battery mixture which is for a sulfide-based all-solid-state secondary battery (paragraph 0018).
With regard to Claim 4, Kanada et al. disclose the all-solid-state secondary battery mixture obtained using a raw material composition containing a solid-state electrolyte and a binder (paragraphs 0032, 0037, 0039-0042), but do not specifically disclose wherein the binder in the raw material composition is a powdered polytetrafluoroethylene resin.
Raman et al. disclose wherein the binder material includes one or more fibrillizable binder components, such as suitable fibrillizable polymeric materials, such as polytetrafluoroethylene particles(paragraphs 0028, 0041). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the polytetrafluoroethylene resin of Kanada et al. to include a fibrous structure with a fibril diameter (median value) of 70 nm or less, because Raman et al. teach that this fibrous material allow for increased binder adherence and film strength, as well as, a number of electrical and/or mechanical performance advantages (paragraphs 0023-0024).
The recitation, "obtained using a raw material composition containing a solid-state electrolyte and a binder", is construed as a product-by-process limitation. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With regard to Claim 5, Raman et al. disclose the all-solid-state secondary battery mixture wherein the raw material composition is substantially free of a liquid medium (paragraph 0045).
With regard to Claim 6, Raman et al. do not specifically disclose the all-solid-state secondary battery mixture wherein the powdered polytetrafluoroethylene resin has a moisture content of 500 ppm or less. However, such properties are inherent given that both Raman et al. and the instant application utilize the same materials. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention's features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. See MPEP 2112.
With regard to Claim 7, Raman et al. do not specifically disclose the all-solid-state secondary battery mixture wherein the powdered polytetrafluoroethylene resin has a standard specific gravity of 2.12 to 2.18. However, such properties are inherent given that both Raman et al. and the instant application utilize the same materials. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention's features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. See MPEP 2112.
With regard to Claim 8, Raman et al. disclose the all-solid-state secondary battery mixture including a polytetrafluoroethylene resin present in an amount of 3-15 weight % (paragraph 0042), but do not specifically disclose wherein the powdered polytetrafluoroethylene resin includes 50% by mass or more of a polytetrafluoroethylene resin having a secondary particle size of 500 µm or more. The specific amount and secondary particle size of powdered polytetrafluoroethylene resin in the all-solid-state secondary battery mixture is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the all-solid-state secondary battery mixture stability and cost of manufacturing are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said amount and secondary particle size of powdered polytetrafluoroethylene resin in the all solid-state secondary battery mixture, with the stability and manufacturing cost both increasing as the amount of powdered polytetrafluoroethylene resin is increased, the precise amount of powdered polytetrafluoroethylene resin in the all-solid-state secondary battery mixture would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of the powdered polytetrafluoroethylene resin in the all-solid-state secondary battery mixture of Raman et al. to obtain the desired balance between the stability and cost of manufacturing (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
With regard to Claim 9, Raman et al. disclose the all-solid-state secondary battery mixture including a polytetrafluoroethylene resin present in an amount of 3-15 weight % (paragraph 0042), but do not specifically disclose wherein the powdered polytetrafluoroethylene resin includes 80% by mass or more of a polytetrafluoroethylene resin having a secondary particle size of 500 µm or more. The specific amount and secondary particles size of powdered polytetrafluoroethylene resin in the all-solid-state secondary battery mixture is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the all-solid-state secondary battery mixture stability and cost of manufacturing are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said amount and secondary particle size of powdered polytetrafluoroethylene resin in the all solid-state secondary battery mixture, with the stability and manufacturing cost both increasing as the amount of powdered polytetrafluoroethylene resin is increased, the precise amount of powdered polytetrafluoroethylene resin in the all-solid-state secondary battery mixture would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount and secondary particle size of the powdered polytetrafluoroethylene resin in the all-solid-state secondary battery mixture of Raman et al. to obtain the desired balance between the stability and cost of manufacturing (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
With regard to Claim 10, Kanda et al. disclose an all-solid-state secondary battery mixture sheet comprising the all-solid-state battery mixture noted above (paragraph 0024).
With regard to Claim 11, Kanda et al. disclose a method for producing an all solid-state secondary battery sheet comprising: (1) mixing a raw material composition including a solid-state electrolyte and a binder; (2) forming the all-solid-state secondary battery mixture obtained in (1) into a bulk shape; and (3) rolling the bulk-shape all-solid-state secondary battery mixture obtained in (2) into a sheet shape, wherein the binder is a powdered polytetrafluoroethylene resin (paragraphs 0013, 0039-0043). Kanada et al. do not specifically disclose a method for producing an all solid-state secondary battery sheet comprising: (1) applying a shear force while mixing a raw material composition including a solid-state electrolyte and a binder, wherein the binder is a powdered polytetrafluoroethylene resin.
Raman et al. disclose a method for producing an electrode film (112) by applying a mechanical shearing force to the fibrillizable binder material to manipulate the binder material such that a plurality of fibrils can be formed from the binder material, wherein the binder is a powdered polytetrafluoroethylene resin (paragraphs 0047-0048). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kanada et al. to include applying a shear force while mixing a raw material composition including a solid-state electrolyte and a binder, because Raman et al. teach that this method step manipulates the binder material such that a plurality of fibrils can be formed from the binder material (paragraph 0048).
With regard to Claim 12, Kanda et al. disclose an all-solid-state secondary battery comprising the all-solid-state secondary battery mixture sheet noted above (paragraph 0052).
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-5, filed December 29, 2025, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-7 and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanda et al. (JP2012-099315A), 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 Raman et al. (US 2017/0256367 A1).
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIE O APICELLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 5:00PM 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/KARIE O'NEILL APICELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725