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 Group I in the reply filed on 02/26/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 4-5 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/07/2023 and 09/16/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyake et al. (JP2015220107A- Machine Translation), "hereinafter "Koyake" in view of Shimizu et al. (US 20190252727 A1), hereinafter "Shimizu". Koyake and Shimizu et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely coating of solid electrolytes.
In regard to Claim 1, Koyake et al. discloses a solid-state battery comprising: a battery laminate including one or more unit batteries (Koyake, [1, 47]), the unit battery configured of a positive electrode layer, a solid electrolyte layer, and a negative electrode layer laminated in this order (Koyake, Abstract). Koyake et al. also discloses wherein at least one of the positive electrode layer, the solid electrolyte layer, and the negative electrode layer contains Li3.5Si0.6P0.4O4 and/or Li2S·P2S5, i.e. a sulfide solid electrolyte (Koyake, [2]) and an inorganic coating layer coating at least a portion of a periphery of the battery laminate (Koyake, [7]). While Koyake et al. discloses the inorganic coating layer may be made of an inorganic glass (Koyake, [3]), it is silent as to the glass possessing a transition point of 260°C or higher and 360°C or lower.
Shimizu et al. discloses a solid battery including a positive electrode layer, a negative electrode layer, a solid electrolyte layer, and a protective layer coating at least a portion of a periphery of the battery laminate (Shimizu, Abstract, [0103]), wherein the coating layer is preferably a glass including Li.sub.2O SiO.sub.2 B.sub.2O.sub.3 (Shimizu, [0058]), which is a glass disclosed on a preferred list in the current application (Original Specification, [0044]), wherein the preferred glass for the coating layer in Shimizu has a glass transition point of 500 °C or less (Shimizu, [0104]), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to have selected the preferred glass of Shimizu with the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by Shimizu as the glass coating of Koyake, as doing so would be obvious to try for the skilled artisan of Koyake and as overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claims 2-3, Koyake et al. in view of Shimizu et al. disclose the sulfide solid-state battery according to claim 1. Koyake et al. also discloses wherein the inorganic coating layer is coated with a resin coating layer made of a fluorine-based resin (Example 2), and wherein the sulfide solid-state battery of claim 1 is soldered to a printed circuit board (Koyake, [50]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights