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 .
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)(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)(2) as being anticipated by Nogami et al (US 2017/0338512).
Nogami teaches an all-solid secondary battery in which a solid electrolyte composed of an ionic conductor 0.9 LiBH4-0.10 P2S5 (example 1); which is laminated on a solid electrolyte composed of a complex hydride solid electrolyte 3LiBH4-LiI ; a positive electrode using TiS2 as an active material on the ionic conductor; and a negative electrode (0077-0079) wherein the electrodes are on opposing sides of the electrolyte. The positive electrode is taught to be on top of the ionic conductor (considered to be the first electrolyte layer) which is taught to be laminated to the complex hydride (considered to be the second electrolyte layer) which is in contact on the opposite side with the negative electrode (0054-0055; 0077-0079 and example 1). The materials of Nogami are the same as a lithium sulfur battery and therefore the all solid-secondary battery is considered to be a lithium sulfur battery.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nogami et al (US 2017/0338512).
Regarding claim 3, Nogami teaches the battery as discussed above.
Nogami does not explicitly teach the area differences as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the area of the electrolytes laminated together to be bigger than the positive electrode on the first electrolyte as such is a known configuration and would have been well within the purview of an ordinarily skilled artisan without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, Nogami teaches the positive electrode to be on top of the ionic conductor (considered to be the first electrolyte layer) which is taught to be laminated to the complex hydride (considered to be the second electrolyte layer) which is in contact on the opposite side with the negative electrode (0054-0055; 0077-0079 and example 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art of record is considered to be Nogami et al (US 2017/0338512), as discussed above. Nogami neither teaches nor renders obvious the claimed limitations of instant claims 2, 5, and 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A SLIFKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/SARAH A. SLIFKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759 February 4, 2026