DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 4-6 and 9-12 are pending in the application, with claims 5-6 and 9-12 currently withdrawn. New grounds of rejection have been added as a result of the amendment to the claims submitted 4/15/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneta (US 2003/0124416) in view of Lin et al. (US 2020/0036033).
Regarding claim 1, Kaneta discloses in Figs 1-5, a secondary battery ([0002]) comprising: an outer package (refs 11); and a content (“middle”, all refs 12-16, Fig 1 below) accommodated in the outer package (refs 11), wherein the content (“middle”, all refs 12-16, Fig 1 below) includes an electrode body (ref 16), and a laminated pack ([0027]) inside of which the electrode body (ref 16) is hermetically accommodated ([0027]), and the outer package (refs 11) substantially uniformly ([0024], “a pressing force as uniform as possible”, [0028] “substantially uniform pressure”) applies pressing force ([0024]) to each of a front surface (“front”, Fig 1 below) and a rear surface (“rear”, Fig 1 below) of the content (“middle”, all refs 12-16, Fig 1 below) due to elastic force ([0024]) of the outer package (refs 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
346
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kaneta et al. does not explicitly disclose an inside of the outer package is under a negative pressure, and inside the outer package, an inside of the laminated pack is under a lower pressure than an outside of the laminated pack.
Lin et al. discloses in Figs 1-9, a secondary battery ([0008]) including a laminated electrode structure comprising a battery cell vacuum sealed in an inner container ([0010]) and packaged in a vacuum sealed outer container ([0010]). A pressure inside the inner container is lower than a pressure inside the outer container ([0010]). This configuration enhances overall battery energy density and safety, thereby enhancing overall and performance ([0002]-[0007]).
Kaneta and Lin et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the pressure differential of the inner and outer containers of Lin et al. into the outer package and laminated structure of Kaneta to enhance battery energy density, safety, and overall performance.
Further, the reference does not explicitly disclose the pressures of the instant claim, less than or equal to 1pa inside and less than or equal to 1000 pa outside. As the battery energy density and safety (see Lin et al., [0002]-[0010]) are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said battery internal pressures, with said battery energy density and safety both varying as the battery internal pressures are varied, the precise battery internal pressures would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed battery internal pressures cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the internal pressures in the battery of Kaneta et al. as taught by Lin et al. to obtain the desired balance between the battery energy density and safety (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneta (US 2003/0124416) in view of Lin et al. (US 2020/0036033) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fukui et al. (US 2018/0198169).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kaneta discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the electrode body is formed of powder material.
Fukui et al. discloses in Figs 1-10, an all-solid state secondary battery (ref 1) including a laminate (ref X) of internal electrode / separator structures ([0025]). The internal structures including electrodes are formed of powder, all-solid material ([0052-[0054]). This configuration results in a uniform pressing force applied to the battery and enhances the battery performance and structural integrity ([0003], [0012], [0064]).
Kaneta and Fukui et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the internal contents of the battery of Kaneta of the all-solid materials as disclosed by Fukui et al. to result in a uniform pressing force applied to the battery and enhance the battery performance and structural integrity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 4 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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 KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights