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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made to applicant’s amendment of claims 1 filed on 04/23/2026. Claims 6-7 remains withdrawn from consideration. Claim 2 has been canceled. Claim 10 is a newly submitted claims. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-5 and 8-10 remain pending and are claims addressed and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that “Oura's invention is directed to improve transfer efficiency, such that the binder concentration on the surface opposite the transfer foil was set higher than the binder concentration on the surface of the transfer foil” and applicant’s argument that “content of the binder in the negative electrode-side region 35 being higher than content of the binder in the positive electrode-side region 34 can accommodate expansion and contraction, dendrite precipitation, and the like”, as well as applicant’s argument that “the strength of the solid electrolyte layer is improved with the inclusion of the base material, while also suppressing delamination and cracking between the solid electrolyte and the base material due to the inclusion of the base material. Furthermore, unevenness in the strength is reduced. Accordingly, yield is improved and less material is wasted, contributing to the reduction of environmental destruction”, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
With regards to applicant’s argument that “Oura's configuration where the binder concentration is high and low is different from our application”, the 103 rejection of claim 2 set forth in the Non-final Rejection mailed on 01/27/2026 modified the release film taught by Ozawa to include a binder gradient from the transfer method taught by Oura. The modification did not include the configuration taught by Ozawa. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With regards to applicant’s argument that the prior art does not disclose how the nonwoven fabric is disposed with regard to the binder. In ¶ 0017 and ¶ 0566, Ozawa teaches that the solid electrolyte layer includes a solid electrolyte sheet containing a nonwoven fiber (porous base material) filled with the solid electrolyte material and a binder. Ozawa teaches that the intermediate layer (second SE layer) may be included in a thickness range of 5 to 30 µm and the negative and positive electrode side regions (first and third SE layers) may be included in a thickness of 2 to 4 µm (¶ 0116). As the electrolyte layers are formed with the base material (nonwoven fiber), it would be obvious to include more of the base material in the layer requiring a larger thickness. Naoe also teaches a base material (framework material) that adsorbs the electrolytic solution and a binder (¶ 0035). In ¶ 0072, Naoe teaches that a high binder content around the active material obstructs the electronic conduction required for cell reaction, and the discharge capacity in a tolerable range from the design capacity cannot be obtained. The electrode side regions are closer the active material thus, it would be reasonable not to provide a high binder content in that region as suggested by Naoe. The combination of Ozawa and Naoe teaches how the nonwoven fabric may be disposed with regards to the binder.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa et al. (US 20210104773 A1) in view of Naoe et al. (US 20190006678 A1) and Oura et al. (US 20210143482 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Ozawa teaches a solid-state battery comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and a solid electrolyte layer which is disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (¶ 0114 and Fig. 3). Ozawa teaches that the solid electrolyte layer includes a solid electrolyte sheet containing a porous base material filled with a solid electrolyte material and a binder (¶ 0566 and ¶ 0428). Ozawa goes on to teach that the solid electrolyte layer includes a positive electrode-side region that includes a region a prescribed distance from a contact surface with respect to the positive electrode (Fig. 3 item 3), a negative electrode-side region that includes a region a prescribed distance from a contact surface with respect to the negative electrode (Fig. 3, item 1), and an intermediate region located between the positive electrode-side region and the negative electrode-side region (Fig. 3, item 2). As discussed earlier, Ozawa teaches that the binder, along with the base material and the solid electrolyte are included in the electrolyte layers (¶ 0017 and ¶ 0566). The perimeter of the layers will be composed of these components. Thus, the binder is disposed to cover a perimeter of the porous base material of the intermediate region. Fig. 3 is shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
813
1273
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ozawa does not specifically teach that a higher percentage of the base material is disposed in the intermediate region than in the positive electrode-side region and negative electrode-side region. However, Ozawa teaches that the intermediate layer (second SE layer) may be included in a thickness range of 5 to 30 µm and the negative and positive electrode side regions (first and third SE layers) may be included in a thickness of 2 to 4 µm (¶ 0116). As the electrolyte layers are formed with the base material (nonwoven fiber), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to include a higher percentage of the base material in the layer requiring a larger thickness (intermediate layer).
Ozawa also does not specifically teach that the content of the binder in the intermediate region is higher than content of the binder in at least one selected from the positive electrode-side region and the negative electrode-side region.
In a similar field of endeavor, Naoe also teaches a base material (framework material) that adsorbs the electrolytic solution and a binder (¶ 0035). In ¶ 0072, Naoe teaches that a high binder content around the active material obstructs the electronic conduction required for cell reaction, and the discharge capacity in a tolerable range from the design capacity cannot be obtained. The electrode side regions taught by Ozawa are closer to the active material thus, it would be reasonable not to provide a high binder content in that region as suggested by Naoe.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to adjust the binder content of the electrode-side regions to have a lower binder concentration to promote conductivity. Adjusting the binder content as taught by Naoe in the electrolyte layer taught by Ozawa would predictably yield an intermediate layer with a higher binder content than the positive electrode-side region and the negative electrode-side region.
Ozawa teaches that the electrolyte laminate may be a transfer sheet including a release film on the positive electrode-side region (¶ 0102). However, Ozawa does not specifically teach that the content of the binder in the negative electrode-side region is higher than content of the binder in the positive electrode-side region.
In a similar field of endeavor, Oura teaches a solid-state battery formed using a transfer method with a binder concentration gradient (¶ 0032). Oura teaches that this gradient has one side having a higher binder concentration than the other to improve transfer efficiency and interlayer adhesion which suppresses the deterioration of the battery (¶ 0069 and ¶ 0110). Oura also teaches that the solid electrolyte layer may be the concentration gradient layer (¶ 0017).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the release film taught by Ozawa to include the binder concentration gradient taught by Oura to improve the transfer efficiency and interlayer adhesion. This can result in a structure where the content of the binder in the negative electrode-side region is higher than content of the binder in the positive electrode-side region.
Through these modifications, Ozawa, in view of Naoe and Oura, renders obvious the limitations of claim 1.
With regards to claim 3, Ozawa teaches that the negative electrode includes a negative electrode layer containing a negative electrode active material disposed on a side of the solid electrolyte layer and a negative electrode current collector disposed on a surface side of the negative electrode (Fig. 3). Ozawa also teaches that the negative electrode-side region includes a first negative electrode-side region located on a side of the negative electrode current collector (Fig. 3 Item 1). Ozawa does not specifically teach a second negative electrode-side region located closer to the positive electrode than the first negative electrode-side region. However, Ozawa teaches that the solid electrolyte laminate may include three or more layers as this results in an excellent battery voltage (¶ 0012).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the negative electrode-side region taught by Ozawa to include a second negative electrode-side region closer to the positive electrode than the first negative electrode-side region. This would predictably yield a solid-state battery with improved battery voltage.
Ozawa does not teach that the content of the binder in the first negative electrode-side region is higher than the content of the binder in the second negative electrode-side region. However, as discussed earlier, Oura teaches a transfer method that utilizes a solid electrolyte layer binder concentration gradient with one side having a higher binder concentration than the other to improve transfer efficiency and interlayer adhesion (¶ 0017, ¶ 0069 and ¶ 0110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the release film taught by Ozawa to include the binder concentration gradient taught by Oura to improve the transfer efficiency and interlayer adhesion. This can result in a structure where the content of the binder in the first negative electrode-side region is higher than content of the binder in the second negative electrode-side region.
With regards to claim 4, Ozawa teaches that when 100% by mass is taken to mean an entirety of the solid electrolyte layer, content of the binder for binding together the solid electrolyte material in the solid electrolyte layer is equal to or higher than 10% by mass (¶ 0380). 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).
With regards to claim 8, Ozawa teaches that when 100% by mass is taken to mean an entirety of the solid electrolyte layer, content of the binder for binding together the solid electrolyte material in the solid electrolyte layer is equal to or higher than 10% by mass (¶ 0380). 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).
Claim(s) 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa et al. (US 20210104773 A1) in view of Naoe et al. (US 20190006678 A1) and Oura (US 20210143482 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Watanabe (US 20210135279 A1).
With regards to claim 5, Ozawa, Naoe and Oura do not teach that the negative electrode includes, as the negative electrode active material, at least one selected from a Li-based material and a Si-based material.
In a similar field of endeavor, Watanabe teaches a solid-state battery comprising a positive electrode and negative electrode with a solid electrolyte layer disposed between the electrodes (¶ 0031). Watanabe teaches that the negative electrode comprises an active material and current collector (¶ 0034 and ¶ 0090). In ¶ 0090, Watanabe goes on to teach at least one selected from a Li-based material and a Si-based material as common negative electrode active materials.
As these materials are commonly used as negative electrode active materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the active materials taught by Watanabe in the battery taught by Ozawa in view of Naoe. This would predictably yield an effective solid-state battery.
With regards to claim 9, Ozawa, Naoe, and Oura do not teach that the negative electrode includes, as the negative electrode active material, at least one selected from a Li-based material and a Si-based material. However, Watanabe teaches lithium and silicon-based materials as negative electrode active materials.
As these materials are commonly used as negative electrode active materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the active materials taught by Watanabe in the battery taught by Ozawa in view of Naoe and Oura. This would predictably yield an effective solid-state battery.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa et al. (US 20210104773 A1) in view of Naoe et al. (US 20190006678 A1) and Oura (US 20210143482 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Ogawa et al. (US 20200144661 A1).
With regards to claim 10, modified Ozawa teaches the solid-state battery according to claim 1. Ozawa also teaches a porous base material (nonwoven fabric). In ¶ 0530 and ¶ 0533, Ozawa teaches heat pressing as a part of the manufacturing process of the solid-state battery. However, Ozawa, in view of Naoe and Oura, does not teach that the porous base material is formed from heat resistant fiber.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ogawa teaches a solid electrolyte sheet support 9base material) that is composed of a heat-resistant fiber (¶ 0029). Ogawa teaches the support being composed of a heat-resistant fiber allows for the suppression of a short circuit in a solid-state battery manufacturing process such as high-temperature pressing (¶ 0029). Ogawa teaches that this reduces interfacial resistance and improves the battery output (¶ 0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to substitute the base material taught by modified Ozawa with the base material taught by Ogawa as this will predictably suppress a short circuit during the heat pressing discussed by Ozawa and, in turn, reduce the interfacial resistance and improve the battery output.
Conclusion
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 HUNSUYADOR YUSIF whose telephone number is (571)272-4531. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 5 pm (M-R).
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, Galen H Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/HUNSUYADOR MUGEESATU YUSIF/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights