DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 2026-07-16, the following has occurred: Claims 1 and 14 have been amended; Claims 2-5 have been canceled.
Claims 1 and 6-20 are pending and are examined herein. This is a Final Rejection.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 9, the introduction of “a first insulating layer” and “a second insulating layer” is indefinite, because such elements were already claimed in claim 1. It is unclear how or whether these elements relate to those listed in claim 1. Furthermore, the claims appear to refer to mutually exclusive embodiments that conflict with the edge descriptions in claim 1. The claims have been interpreted as referring to the already-existing insulating layers, where appropriate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (US 2022/0302506 to Nakano et al.) in view of Tanaka (US 2022/0077501 to Tanaka et al.) and/or Ito (US 2021/0083321 to Ito et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Nakano teaches:
an all-solid state battery comprising a solid electrolyte layer 20, a first electrode 10A with active layer 11A and current collector 12a, and a second electrode 10B with active layer 11B and current collector 12B, all disposed in a stacking direction with the electrolyte between the electrodes (Fig. 2, ¶ 0007-0009)
PNG
media_image1.png
416
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first separating portion 40A and a second separating portion 40B in contact with the first electrode and second electrode, respectively, the separation portions being formed of insulating material and therefore being “insulating layers in contact with” the electrode layers in a planar direction (¶ 0086, 0104, Fig. 2)
the electrodes each having an arbitrarily identifiable central portion and outer portion(s), the central portions of the electrodes and the electrolyte overlapping each other in the stacking direction (Figs. 2, 6B)
at least one embodiment wherein an outer portion 500’B/500’D of the electrode 10B overlap the solid electrolyte layer 20 in the stacking direction and having a corner portion (Figs. 2 and 6B, ¶ 0141)
wherein the outer portion of the electrodes also have corner portions (bottom right, and reverse for the other electrode, in Fig. 6B), located on opposite sides to each other in different electrode layers (compare Fig. 2 showing opposite sides for the collector layer/insulator layer in opposite electrodes and Fig. 6B)
PNG
media_image2.png
270
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It seems that Nakano does not unambiguously show an embodiment in which the other electrode has a mirror-symmetrical structure with a corner portion diagonally opposite to the corner of electrode 10B shown in Fig. 6B. It would have been obvious, however, to provide a diagonally opposite corner for the electrode 10A in the stack, since Nakano teaches providing mirror symmetry for aligning external terminals (see Fig. 1). Tanaka, discussed above, teaches alternating stacks with outer/edge portions. Likewise, Ito, from the same field of invention, regarding a stacked cell, teaches diagonal mirror symmetry with outer edge portions (Figs. 12A-12B). Providing diagonal symmetry keeps the exposed, electrically conducting collectors away from each other and is, for that reason, obvious.
PNG
media_image3.png
964
676
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A structure or method step that is obvious to try— such as one that is chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Nakano further teaches:
that a central portion 11B”1-4 of each of the electrodes is rectangular with four edges (Fig. 6B, ¶ 0098)
the outer portion of the electrode layers 500’B and 500’D include two linear portions connected at a bent corner portion of the respective outer portion that are in contact with an entirety of bottom and right adjacent edges of the central portion 11B”1 and 11B”4
the insulating layers for each electrode also includes two linear portions 500’A and 500’C that are bent and integrally connected at the opposite corner and in contact with two entire edges 11B”2-3 of the central portion of the corresponding electrode layers diagonally opposite the “outer portion” of that electrode layer (Fig. 6B)
Regarding Claim 6, Nakano teaches:
the sold electrolyte 20 including an arbitrarily identifiable set of corner portions facing diagonally and overlapping the diagonally opposed first and second electrode layers (Fig. 2 in light of embodiment shown in Fig. 6B, ¶ 0141)
While Nakano appears to teach electrodes of different area, the area of the respective electrodes was a results effective variable in the art, known to be set by considerations of material, energy density, SEI formation, and the like. Tanaka, for example, renders obvious using the same active material layer areas for both electrodes. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in the active material layer areas involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, Nakano teaches:
solid electrolyte layers 20 overlapping the entire electrode layers, including corner portions of and outer portion edges (Figs. 2 and 6B)
Regarding Claims 9-13, Nakano teaches:
insulating layers forming two edge portions opposite the edge portions of the collectors (Fig. 6B)
other embodiments with 3-sided insulating layers (Fig. 6A) and single-sided insulating layers (Fig. 6C), and more complex shapes (Figs. 5A-C)
See also Tanaka for other possible shapes conventional in the art. Where a prior art component has the same function as the instantly claimed component, motivation to alter the shape of the component to any other equally useful shape is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Regarding Claim 14, Nakano teaches:
an all-solid state battery comprising a solid electrolyte layer 20, a first electrode 10A with active layer 11A and current collector 12a, and a second electrode 10B with active layer 11B and current collector 12B, all disposed in a stacking direction with the electrolyte between the electrodes (Fig. 2, ¶ 0007-0009)
a first separating portion 40A and a second separating portion 40B in contact with the first electrode and second electrode, respectively, the separation portions being formed of insulating material and therefore being “insulating layers in contact with” the electrode layers in a planar direction (¶ 0086, 0104, Fig. 2)
the electrodes each having an arbitrarily identifiable central portion and outer portion(s), the central portions of the electrodes and the electrolyte overlapping each other in the stacking direction (Figs. 2, 6B)
at least one embodiment wherein an outer portion 500’B/500’D of the electrode 10B overlap the solid electrolyte layer 20 in the stacking direction and having a corner portion (Figs. 2 and 6B, ¶ 0141)
wherein the outer portion of the electrodes also have corner portions (bottom right, and reverse for the other electrode, in Fig. 6B), located on opposite sides to each other in different electrode layers (compare Fig. 2 showing opposite sides for the collector layer/insulator layer in opposite electrodes and Fig. 6B)
It seems that Nakano does not unambiguously show an embodiment in which the other electrode has a mirror-symmetrical structure with a corner portion diagonally opposite to the corner of electrode 10B shown in Fig. 6B. It would have been obvious, however, to provide a diagonally opposite corner for the electrode 10A in the stack, since Nakano teaches providing mirror symmetry for aligning external terminals (see Fig. 1). Tanaka, discussed above, teaches alternating stacks with outer/edge portions. Likewise, Ito, from the same field of invention, regarding a stacked cell, teaches diagonal mirror symmetry with outer edge portions (Figs. 12A-12B). Providing diagonal symmetry keeps the exposed, electrically conducting collectors away from each other and is, for that reason, obvious. A structure or method step that is obvious to try— such as one that is chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Nakano further teaches:
that a central portion 11B”1-4 of each of the electrodes is rectangular with four edges (Fig. 6B, ¶ 0098)
the outer portion of the electrode layers 500’B and 500’D include two linear portions connected at a bent corner portion of the respective outer portion that are in contact with an entirety of bottom and right adjacent edges of the central portion 11B”1 and 11B”4
the insulating layers for each electrode also includes two linear portions 500’A and 500’C that are bent and integrally connected at the opposite corner and in contact with two entire edges 11B”2-3 of the central portion of the corresponding electrode layers diagonally opposite the “outer portion” of that electrode layer (Fig. 6B)
first and second external electrodes connected to corresponding adjacent edges of the outer portions of the electrode layers (¶ 0007, Figs.)
Regarding Claims 15-16, Nakano teaches:
that a central portion 11B”1-4 of each of the electrodes is rectangular with four edges (Fig. 6B, ¶ 0098)
the outer portion of the electrode layers 500’B and 500’D include two linear portions connected at a bent corner portion of the respective outer portion that are in contact with an entirety of bottom and right adjacent edges of the central portion 11B”1 and 11B”4
the insulating layers for each electrode also includes two linear portions 500’A and 500’C that are bent and integrally connected at the opposite corner and in contact with two entire edges 11B”2-3 of the central portion of the corresponding electrode layers diagonally opposite the “outer portion” of that electrode layer (Fig. 6B)
the outer portions and insulating layers forming quandrangular frames around the central portions of the respective electrodes
Regarding Claims 17-18, Nakano teaches:
insulating layers around the central portions of the electrodes with three outer edge portions (Fig. 4A)
Regarding Claim 19, Nakano teaches:
the sold electrolyte 20 including an arbitrarily identifiable set of corner portions facing diagonally and overlapping the diagonally opposed first and second electrode layers (Fig. 2 in light of embodiment shown in Fig. 6B, ¶ 0141)
While Nakano appears to teach electrodes of different area, the area of the respective electrodes was a results effective variable in the art, known to be set by considerations of material, energy density, SEI formation, and the like. Tanaka, for example, renders obvious using the same active material layer areas for both electrodes. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in the active material layer areas involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding Claim 20, Nakano teaches:
a cell stack with diagonal portions and opposite external electrodes (abstract, Figs. 1-6, ¶ 0007)
Response to Arguments
The Remarks submitted 2026-07-16 have been considered but are unpersuasive. In response to the amendments, some claims are now rejected for indefiniteness, while the obviousness rejections are now all in view of Nakano, Tanaka, and Ito. On pp. 10-11 of the arguments Applicant argues that Nakano:
does not disclose an electrode having an outer portion with two bent and integrally connected linear portions that contact the entirety of two adjacent edges of a central portion of the electrode layer. Nor does Nakano disclose a corresponding insulating having two bent and integrally connected linear portions that contact the two remaining entire edges of the central portion
Despite citing to Fig. 6B, which appears to teach this very thing, Applicant says that Nakano discloses “an electrode separation portion [… which] is not the same as the specifically claimed arrangement in which the outer portion of the electrode layer and the corresponding insulating layer cooperatively contact different entire edges of the central portion of the electrode layer. Applicant asserts this without further explanation. The Office disagrees. Nakano teaches exactly what is claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights