CTNF 18/279,099 CTNF 78081 DETAILED ACTION Response to Amendment Amendments to the specification and claims, filed on August 28, 2023, have been entered in the above-identified application. 07-103 AIA 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 Analysis The present application contains one active independent claim(s) (claim 1) and six active dependent claims (claims 2 - 7). Examiner’s Comments 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. Column and line ( or Paragraph Number ) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “ Figure 1, element 1 ” should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-14-aia AIA (g)(1) During the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other. A rejection on this statutory basis (35 U.S.C. 102(g) as in force on March 15, 2013) is appropriate in an application or patent that is examined under the first to file provisions of the AIA if it also contains or contained at any time (1) a claim to an invention having an effective filing date as defined in 35 U.S.C. 100(i) that is before March 16, 2013 or (2) a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1)/(a)(2 ) as being anticipated by IDS reference Waseda (U.S. Patent App. No. 2019/0334205 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Waseda discloses an all-solid-state battery ( Title; Abstract ) comprising: a positive electrode layer including a positive electrode active material layer ( Figure 3, elements 2a, 2b, etc. PNG media_image1.png 708 1074 media_image1.png Greyscale ) and a positive electrode current collector ( elements 1a, 1b, etc. ); a negative electrode layer including a negative electrode active material layer ( elements 4a, 4b, etc. ) and a negative electrode current collector ( elements 5a, 5b, etc. ); a solid electrolyte layer ( elements 3a, 3b, etc. ); and an insulating film ( elements 21 ), wherein the insulating film has therein a through-hole in which a laminate in which the positive electrode active material layer, the solid electrolyte layer, and the negative electrode active material layer are sequentially stacked is housed ( Figure 3 and at least Paragraphs 0029 – 0031: PNG media_image2.png 192 908 media_image2.png Greyscale ), wherein the laminate and the insulating film are arranged between the positive electrode current collector and the negative electrode current collector ( ibid and PNG media_image3.png 192 908 media_image3.png Greyscale , and wherein an external shape of the insulating film is larger than external shapes of the positive electrode current collector and the negative electrode current collector when viewed in a plan view in a laminating direction of the laminate ( ibid: PNG media_image4.png 192 908 media_image4.png Greyscale ). Regarding claim 4, Waseda disclose the use of a resin ( Paragraph 0057 ). Regarding claim 6, Waseda discloses the plurality of units being connected in series meeting the claimed limitations ( Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0057 - 0062 ) . 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1)/(a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Okamoto et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2024/0021933 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Okamoto discloses an all-solid-state battery ( Paragraph 0029 ) comprising: a positive electrode layer ( PNG media_image5.png 684 921 media_image5.png Greyscale : Figure 1, element 11 ) including a positive electrode active material layer ( elements 22 ) and a positive electrode current collector 1 ( elements 20 ); a negative electrode layer ( elements 12 ) including a negative electrode active material layer ( elements 23 ) and a negative electrode current collector ( elements 21 ); a solid electrolyte layer ( elements 13 and Paragraph 0036 ); and an insulating film ( elements 14 and Paragraphs 0039 - 0042 ), wherein the insulating film has therein a through-hole in which a laminate in which the positive electrode active material layer, the solid electrolyte layer, and the negative electrode active material layer are sequentially stacked is housed ( Figures 1 and 2 ), wherein the laminate and the insulating film are arranged between the positive electrode current collector and the negative electrode current collector ( ibid and PNG media_image6.png 109 787 media_image6.png Greyscale , and wherein an external shape of the insulating film is larger than external shapes of the positive electrode current collector and the negative electrode current collector when viewed in a plan view in a laminating direction of the laminate ( ibid: PNG media_image7.png 108 776 media_image7.png Greyscale ). Regarding claim 4, Okamoto et al. disclose the use of a resin ( Paragraphs 0039 - 0042 ). Regarding claim 6, Okamoto et al. discloses the plurality of units being connected in series meeting the claimed limitations ( Figure 1 above ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-23-fti The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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. Regarding numbers (1), (2) and (4), see the rejection(s) provided below. Regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, the general level of skill is taken as a highly skilled technician having at least a BS, MS, or PhD in the relevant field and 3-5 years experience. 07-21 AIA Claim s 1 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Okamoto et al. as applied above, and further as evidenced by one or more of Murata et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 5,378,557), Nagase (U.S. Patent App. No. 2022/0246912 A1), and/or Suzuki et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,548,880) . Regarding claim 1, Okamoto et al. is relied upon as described above. While the Examiner maintains that Okamoto et al. anticipates the claimed limitations as set forth above, the Examiner acknowledges that Okamoto et al. terms the outer layers the ‘current collectors’ and the inner layers, recite as part of the electrodes as ‘electrode tabs’. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that a skilled artisan would readily appreciate that the terms ‘terminal (electrode) plates’ and ‘current conductors’ are synonymous in the battery arts and both nomenclatures cover similar/identical layer structures, as evidenced by Murata et al. ( Figure 1 and col. 4, lines 50 – 63 ) . Substitution of functional equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the functional equivalency. In the instant case, the terms ‘plates’ (electrode plate or terminal plate) and ‘current collector’ are functional equivalents in the field of nomenclatures used for these conductive layers designed to ‘collect’ the current. In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950). It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of Okamoto et al. to term layers 20 and 21 as ‘current collectors’, thereby explicitly meeting the claimed limitations, as this is merely equivalent terminology for these types of layers in a battery structure. Regarding claim 2, Okamoto et al. discloses that the spacer 14 does not need to contact both ‘current collectors’ ( Paragraph 0039 ), which would result in the laminate being thicker than the insulating film per the claimed limitations. The Examiner takes Official Notice that this could easily be accomplished by applying adhesive layers on the top and bottom of the spacers 14 , thereby making them smaller than the laminate in thickness, as evidenced by Suzuki et al. ( Figures 1 and 2, layers 1 – 3 and relevant disclosure thereto ) . The Examiner notes that multilayered ‘sealing members’ including some having a metallic portion versus an entire spacer of insulating material are also recognized as equivalent to the spacers 14 , as evidenced by Murata et al. ( elements 4 and relevant disclosures thereto ) . Either multilayer embodiment would results in structures meeting the claimed limitations as a matter of substitution of known equivalent spacer structures. Regarding claim 3, Okamoto et al. disclose leaving a space (S) between the spacer 14 and the laminate ( see Figure above ), but does not give the exact dimensions. However, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the spacing S meeting the claimed limitations through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in Okamoto et al. above regarding the desire to leave such a space in the first place. In re Boesch , 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler , 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller , 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Regarding claim 4, Okamoto et al. discloses this limitation as noted above. Regarding claim 5, the Examiner takes Official Notice that having a plurality of through-holes in which the laminates are located is a known, equivalent battery structure as evidenced by Murata et al. ( Figure 16 ) . Substitution of functional equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the functional equivalency. In the instant case, Murata et al. clearly provides evidence that having a plurality of ‘through-holes’ in which the laminate of an active material layer, electrolyte layer, and second active material layer are formed is recognized as a known, secondary battery structure. In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950). Regarding claim 6, Okamoto et al. discloses these limitations as noted above. This is also evidenced by Nagase, which discloses that it is known to form laminates of two active material layers sandwiching a solid electrolyte layer in either series or parallel ( at least Paragraphs 0087 – 0089 ) . Regarding claim 7, similar to the discussion above with regard to claim 6, the Examiner notes that forming laminates connected in series versus in parallel are art recognized as equivalent structures in all-solid state batteries, as evidenced by Nagase ( at least Paragraphs 0087 – 0089 ) . Substitution of functional equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the functional equivalency. In the instant case, forming a structure that meets claim 6’s limitations, as explicitly illustrated by Okamoto et al. and forming one that meets the limitations of claim 7 in order to connect the laminates in parallel are functional equivalents in the field of known ways to connect laminates of two active material layers sandwiching a solid electrolyte layer, as evidenced by Nagase above . The insulating layers would necessarily still be required to provide the sealing function as taught by Okamoto et al. above and, as such, the Examiner deems that the entirety of claim 7 is rendered obvious to a skilled artisan as a skilled artisan would clearly recognize how to connect these laminates in series, as evidenced above . In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M BERNATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1505. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (variable: ~0600 - 1500 ET). 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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. /KEVIN M BERNATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785 March 21, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/279,099 Page 2 Art Unit: 1785 Application/Control Number: 18/279,099 Page 3 Art Unit: 1785 Application/Control Number: 18/279,099 Page 4 Art Unit: 1785 Application/Control Number: 18/279,099 Page 6 Art Unit: 1785 Application/Control Number: 18/279,099 Page 8 Art Unit: 1785 Application/Control Number: 18/279,099 Page 9 Art Unit: 1785 1 The Examiner notes that Okamoto et al. calls these the ‘electrode plate’ and elements ‘30’ and ‘40’ as “current collectors”, yet a skilled artisan would readily appreciate that the active material layer is coated onto what Applicants are calling the ‘current collectors’ ( e.g. see art to Murata et al. (‘557) which has a similar structure, but calls the outermost layers the ‘terminal plates’ and the inner layers sandwiching the electrolyte layer the ‘current collectors’ ). As such, the Examiner deems that the layers 20 and 21 in Okamoto et al. clearly read on the claimed ‘current collector’ layers.