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 arguments filed on August 10, 2026, were received. None of the Claims have been amended, cancelled, withdrawn from consideration, or added as new. Therefore, Claims 1-12 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 9, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. Information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted July 17, 2026, has been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. The rejection of Claims 1-12 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), is maintained. The rejection is repeated below for convenience.
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
6. Applicant's arguments filed August 10, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “present claim 1 requires "a fibrous structure with a fibril diameter (median value) of 70 nm or less." The Examiner cites Raman paragraph [0028] as disclosing "fibrillizable binder particles have a fibril diameter of less than about 0.01 µm." However, Raman discloses in paragraph [0028] that "the super-fibrillized binder particles are characterized by a greatest dimension of less than about 3 microns (µm), less than about 2 µm, less than about 0.1 µm, less than about 0.05 µm, less than about 0.03 µm, less than about 0.01 µm." That is, Raman discloses the "greatest dimension" of the binder particles, not a fibril diameter. The present specification describes the method for measuring the fibril diameter in paragraph [0015]. Accordingly, what Raman discloses is the "greatest dimension" of the fibrillized binder particles, which is different from the "fibril diameter" recited in the present claims. Therefore, even if Kanda and Raman were combined, the claimed invention would not have been obtained”.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Raman teaches "the super-fibrillized binder particles are characterized by a greatest dimension of less than about 3 microns (µm), less than about 2 µm, less than about 0.1 µm, less than about 0.05 µm, less than about 0.03 µm, less than about 0.01 µm." The particles are disclosed as being fibers (a fibrous structure). The fibers are taught to have a greatest dimension of less than about 3 microns (µm), less than about 2 µm, less than about 0.1 µm, less than about 0.05 µm, less than about 0.03 µm, less than about 0.01 µm. The definition of a median diameter is the particle size at which half of a sample’s particles are smaller and half are larger. Raman’s “greatest dimension” still teaches a value that is less than the claimed “median value”, and would inherently meet the claimed limitations.
In addition, the claimed limitation, “a fibrous structure with a fibril diameter (median value) of 70 nm or less”, is unclear as to if the “median value” is to be given patentable weight since it in parenthesis. It could also be interpreted as having “a fibrous structure” with no measured fibril diameter since it is claimed to be “70 nm or less”, encompassing 0 nm. Applicant argues that the “present specification describes the method for measuring the fibril diameter”. However, the method of measuring the fibril diameter is not given patentable weight and is not relied upon for meeting the claimed limitations since is not part of the recited claim language.
Applicant further argues, “regarding independent method claim 11, the Examiner asserts that Raman discloses 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]). The Examiner considers that it would have been obvious to modify the method of Kanda to include applying a shear force while mixing a raw material composition including a solid-state electrolyte and a binder, because Raman teaches that this method step manipulates the binder material such that a plurality of fibrils can be formed from the binder material. However, claim 11 requires three distinct sequential steps: (1) mixing with shear force (2) forming into a bulk shape (3) rolling the bulk shape into a sheet. Kanda does not teach distinct "bulk shape" and "rolling" steps. Thus, Kanda goes directly from the mixed powder to pressure-forming into a sheet, and there is no intermediate step of forming a "bulk shape" that is subsequently rolled. Therefore, even if Kanda and Raman were combined, the claimed invention would not have been obtained.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Raman is relied upon to disclose 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]). Kanda disclose all of the other claimed method steps, including a composite material positive electrode material mixed with a binder, which would inherently form some kind of bulk shape since the instant specification states that “bulk shape” does not specify a specific shape (paragraphs [0115]), before being able to be rolled. Therefore, by combining Kanda and Raman, the claimed invention has been obtained.
Conclusion
7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
8. 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
Prosecution Insights