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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/13/26 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. (CN 2582186 Y, hereinafter Zeng, previously cited) in view of applicant’s admitted prior art (hereinafter AAPA) and Ota et al. (US 2022/0149439 A1, hereinafter Ota).
Re Claim 1. Zeng teaches an electrode laminate (Fig. 7, P2), comprising:
a plurality of sheet-shaped negative electrodes (items 24 & 25); a plurality of sheet-shaped separators (item 23); and a plurality of sheet-shaped positive electrodes (items 21 & 22),
the plurality of negative electrodes, the plurality of solid electrolytes or separators, and the plurality of positive electrodes being laminated together within a predetermined rare (Fig. 7),
in the plurality of negative electrodes, negative electrode current collecting parts (item 251) protruding from the predetermined range to one side being bonded together,
in the plurality of positive electrodes, positive electrode current collecting parts (item 211) protruding from the predetermined range to the other side being bonded together,
the one side and the other side being in opposite directions to each other (Fig. 7), and
the negative electrode current collecting parts and the positive electrode current collecting parts having a shape that tapers toward a direction away from the predetermined range and that tapers from both sides toward a center in a width direction of the predetermined range (Fig. 7).
Zeng fails to teach that the plurality of positive/negative current collecting parts are bonded together with a sealant, and each having a triangular shape.
AAPA discloses that the plurality of positive/negative current collecting parts are bonded together with a sealant (para. 3).
In view of AAPA, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Zeng to employ sealant for boding current collecting parts, to ensure the bonding.
The invention of Ota encompasses battery. Ota teaches that current collecting parts can have various shapes including rectangular, triangular, trapezoidal, or semicircular shape (para. 68).
In view of Ota, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Zeng in view of AAPA to have a triangular shaped current collecting parts, since using a well-known shape for current collecting parts would be within purview of one skill in the art.
Re Claim 3. The combination teaches a secondary battery (Zeng, abstract), comprising the electrode laminate according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng in view of AAPA and Ota as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Daidoji et al. (WO 2010/134170 A1, hereinafter Daidoji, previously cited).
The teachings of Zeng in view of AAPA and Ota have been discussed above.
Zeng in view of AAPA and Ota fails to teach that the negative electrodes include at least one of lithium, sodium, potassium, silicon, or alloys thereof.
The invention of Daidoji encompasses laminated secondary battery. Daidoji teaches that the negative electrodes include lithium (P8).
In view of Daidoji, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Zeng in view of AAPA and Ota to employ lithium in the negative electrodes, since using a well-known negative electrode material is within purview of one skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Newly cited references AAPA and Ota address the new limitation.
Conclusion
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
5/29/2026
Prosecution Insights