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 Invention 1 and Species 1 in the reply filed on 11/26/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn towards nonelected Invention 2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ichikawa et al. (US-20150325822-A1) as evidenced by Yoshioka et al. (US-6485862-B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ichikawa discloses a specific embodiment (Example 4, Fig. 6; [0057-0060, 0107-0111]) wherein a secondary battery (film-covered battery 1; [0027, 0057, 0074-0080]) comprises:
an electrode laminate (battery element 6; [0035]) and an exterior packaging member (film covering material 4; [0027, 0035, 0081-0084]), the electrode laminate comprising a positive electrode [0074-0075] and a negative electrode [0076-0077].
Ichikawa teaches that a separator is interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode [0078], and electrolyte is added to the battery [0088]. Although not explicitly disclosed, it is understood that the separator is impregnated with the electrolyte as evidenced by Yoshioka (see Yoshioka: Col. 4, lines 55-60), thereby resulting in a structure wherein the positive electrode and the negative electrode are “laminated via an electrolyte interposed therebetween”.
Ichikawa further discloses:
the electrode laminate (battery element 6) being wrapped with the exterior packaging member (film covering material 4; see Fig. 6),
wherein (see annotation of Ichikawa Fig. 6, below) the exterior packaging member comprises an exterior packaging area that wraps the electrode laminate, a heat-sealing area, and an intermediate area existing between the exterior packaging area and the heat-sealing area,
in the exterior packaging area, a layer containing a first resin (heat sealing layer 13; [0084], a layer containing a second resin (heat sealing layer 13; [0084]), a layer containing metal (barrier layer 12; [0035, 0083]), and a layer containing a third resin (surface protective layer 11; [0035, 0082]) are sequentially laminated from an electrode laminate side (see annotation of Ichikawa Fig. 6, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
540
1104
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Ichikawa Fig. 6.
Specifically, Ichikawa discloses that each of the layers may be formed in a multilayer structure [0039], and in a specific embodiment Ichikawa discloses that the heat sealing layer (13) is formed as a three-layer structure [0084]. Therefore, the innermost layer of the three-layer structure reads on the recited limitation of a “layer containing a first resin” and the outermost layer of the three-layer structure reads on the recited limitation of a “layer containing a second resin” (see annotation of Ichikawa Fig. 6, below). Notably, the layers are still interpreted as being “sequentially laminated” as required by the claim and as evidenced by the Cambridge Dictionary, since the recited order of the claimed layers is present within the exterior packaging area.
PNG
media_image2.png
540
818
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Ichikawa Fig. 6 showing the first and second resin layers
Assuming, arguendo, that Applicant is able to show by means of evidence or persuasive argument that “sequentially laminating” requires the layers to be directly adjacent, Examiner notes that Ichikawa still anticipates the claimed structure since, under an alternative interpretation of the heat sealing layer (13), the combination of the innermost layer and the middle layer of the three-layer structure read on the recited limitation of a “layer containing a first resin”, and the outermost layer of the three-layer structure reads on the recited limitation of the “a layer containing a second resin” (see annotation of Ichikawa Fig. 6, below). Here, a “layer” is broadly and reasonably interpreted as including a multilayer.
PNG
media_image3.png
453
824
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Ichikawa Fig. 6 showing an alternative interpretation of the first and second resin layers
Ichikawa further discloses (see annotation of Ichikawa Fig. 6, below; [0057-0060, 0107-0111]):
in the heat-sealing area the layer containing metal and the layer containing the third resin are sequentially laminated on both sides of the layer containing the second resin, and
in the intermediate area, a resin pool (resin mass 32, Fig. 6) comprising the first resin is formed.
PNG
media_image4.png
596
1283
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Ichikawa Fig. 6.
Specifically, Ichikawa discloses that the heat sealing layer (13) comprises the first resin layer and the second resin layer (see above; [0029, 0084]), and that the heat sealing layer is softened to form the resin mass [0038-0041, 0043, 0058]. Therefore both the first resin and the second resin are present in the heat-sealing area, and in the resin pool (resin mass 32) formed in the intermediate area, which reads on the recited limitations of “in the heat-sealing area the layer containing metal and the layer containing the third resin are sequentially laminated on both sides of the layer containing the second resin, and in the intermediate area, a resin pool comprising the first resin is formed”.
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.
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa et al. (US-20150325822-A1) as evidenced by Yoshioka et al. (US-6485862-B1) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in view of Komatsu et al. (US-20040096735-A1).
Regarding Claims 3-4, Ichikawa anticipates all of the limitations as set forth, above, including that the positive electrode and negative electrode are separated by a separator [0078]. Ichikawa discloses that the electrolyte is a nonaqueous liquid electrolyte [0088], and therefore does not teach that the battery is a solid battery.
Komatsu teaches a similar secondary battery [Abstract, 0003, 0014, 0019-0022, 0029, 0071]. Komatsu teaches that a solid electrolyte can successfully replace a separator impregnated with an electrolytic solution as a separating material interposed between a negative electrode plate and positive electrode plate [0003, 0020, 0026, 0074]. Advantageously, the use of a solid electrolyte allows for a larger selection of active materials [0020, 0023], and functions to successfully separate the electrodes and prevent a short-circuit [0003, 0020, 0026].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the separator impregnated with an electrolytic solution disclosed by Ichikawa for a solid electrolyte as taught by Komatsu with a reasonable expectation that such substitution would result in a successful battery capable of preventing a short-circuit between the electrodes and allowing for a larger selection of active materials (MPEP 2144.06, II).
The use of a solid electrolyte reads on “the secondary battery being a solid battery” as required by Claim 3. Here, a “solid battery” is interpreted in light of the instant specification as being a secondary battery wherein the electrolyte is contained in a gel electrolyte layer, a solid electrolyte layer, and the like [instant specification: 0029]. The substitution of the separator for a solid electrolyte further reads on “in the electrode laminate, the positive electrode and the negative electrode are laminated via a solid electrolyte layer interposed therebetween” as required by Claim 4.
Other References Considered
The following prior art, although not relied upon in the rejections of record, is considered relevant to the claims:
Sasaki et al. (US-20220085444-A1) teaches an all-solid state battery wherein the exterior material comprises (10, Fig. 4) comprises four layers including a base material (1), a barrier layer (3) a barrier protective film (3a) and a heat-sealable resin layer (4) [0025-0027, 0030, 0051, 0068, 0097, 0124-0125, 0138-0139].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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/JONATHAN G LEONG/ (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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 1/16/2026