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
The amendment filed on 05/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 is amended, Claims 1-5 are pending and Claims 4 and 5 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto et al. (US 20030232248 A1), hereinafter “Iwamoto” in view of Ogasa et al. (JP 6386224 B2 – Machine Translation referenced for citation), hereinafter “Ogasa”. Iwamoto and Ogasa 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, Iwamoto et al. discloses a sulfide solid-state battery comprising: a battery laminate including one or more unit batteries, the unit battery configured of a positive electrode layer, a solid electrolyte layer, and a negative electrode layer laminated in this order; and an inorganic coating layer coating at least a portion of a periphery of the battery laminate (Iwamoto, Abstract, [0049]). Iwamoto et al. also discloses a positive electrode conductive portion in electrical contact with a positive electrode active material layer of the positive electrode layer; and a negative electrode conductive portion in electrical contact with a negative electrode active material layer of the negative electrode layer, wherein at least one of the positive electrode layer, the solid electrolyte layer, and the negative electrode layer contains a sulfide solid electrolyte (Iwamoto, [0043, 0049, 0056]) and the inorganic coating layer is made of an inorganic glass wherein the inorganic coating layer covers a periphery of the positive electrode active material layer, a periphery of the solid electrolyte layer, and a periphery of the negative electrode active material layer; and the inorganic coating layer does not cover a periphery of the positive electrode conductive portion or a periphery of the negative electrode conductive portion (Iwamoto, [0062, 0065, 0097]).
While Iwamoto list examples of the inorganic glass used for the coating it is not particularly limited (Iwamoto, [0065, 0068]) and the skilled artisan of Iwamoto would be aware of other glasses with certain properties that can be used for coating a solid electrolyte as evidenced by Ogasa et al. which discloses an electrode stack, solid electrolyte and inorganic glass coating wherein the beneficial glass material has a glass transition point of 350°C or less, which overlaps the claimed range and has a benefit taught in Ogasa of providing a glass for coating with a glass transition point in that range as having good thermal stability and chemical stability, preventing moisture (water vapor) from entering from the outside, and facilitating handling as a powder or paste (Ogasa [44,87, 97]). 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 a glass for the coating in Iwamoto with a Tg within the overlapping portion of the ranges taught by the Ogasa, as doing so would give the skilled artisan of Iwamoto the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Ogasa 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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto et al. (US 20030232248 A1), hereinafter “Iwamoto” in view of Ogasa et al. (JP 6386224 B2 – Machine Translation referenced for citation), hereinafter “Ogasa” as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Koyake et al. (JP2015220107A- Machine Translation), "hereinafter "Koyake". Iwamoto, Ogasa and Koyake 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 Claims 2-3, Iwamoto in view of Ogasa et al. discloses the sulfide solid-state battery according to claim 1. While Iwamoto discloses a resin layer which may be used for sealing [0063], it is silent as to the resin layer comprising a fluorine based resin or a printed circuit board with the sulfide SSB. However, the skilled artisan would be well aware of this configuration as evidenced by Koyake et al. which 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]). Koyake et al. also discloses wherein the inorganic coating layer is coated with a beneficial 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]). Koyake teaches the benfit of this resin layer as achieving a waterproof effect to allow the all-solid-state lithium ion secondary battery which suppressed the influence by water vapor/steam and can be surface-mounted to a printed circuit board. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a fluorine based resin layer over the inorganic glass coating layer as taught in Koyake to the inorganic glass coating layer of Iwamoto as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Koyake and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim1 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 against claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sasaki et al. (US 20220069390 A1), which discloses an exterior material which is applied to an all-solid-state battery using a solid electrolyte containing a sulfide solid electrolyte material, the exterior material comprising at least a substrate layer; a barrier layer; a barrier layer protection film formed on the surface of the barrier layer; and a heat-fusible resin layer in this order from the outside (Sasaki, Abstract).
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 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
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights