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
Claims 6, 13, 17 and 21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 23 June 2026 and 27 May 2026. It is noted here the election (23 June 2026, 27 May 2026) did not fully indicate the (generic) claims encompassing the elected species; examiner called applicant’s representative for clarification, but did not receive a reply. Nonetheless, this office action considers claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-16, and 18-20 as reading on the elected invention/species.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11, 14-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2022/0293895) in view of Doi (US 2011/0281160), and Suga (JP2010/092696), hereinafter Lee, Doi, Suga
Regarding Claims 1, 4, and 18, Lee suggests a battery comprising: an electrode layer (e.g., positive electrode); a counter-electrode layer (negative electrode) placed opposite to the electrode layer; and a solid electrolyte layer (i.e., separator (lithium ion battery), or polymer electrolyte (lithium ion polymer battery)) located between the electrode layer and the counter-electrode layer, [0065]. Lee does not suggest the solid electrolyte layer contains a solid electrolyte having lithium-ion conductivity. However, Doi suggests a solid electrolyte which contains a solid electrolyte having lithium-ion conductivity between electrode, [0043]; since solid electrolytes are nonflammable they offer improved safety and simplification of the battery (i.e., a system to secure safeness is not necessary, see e.g., [0003]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the solid electrolyte layer between the electrodes contains a solid electrolyte having lithium ion conductivity to secure safety and to simplify the battery structure, as suggested by Doi.
Lee shows each electrode includes a current collector (110) and active material layer (120); each electrode includes an insulating layer (130) located between the collector (110) and the active material layer (120) at ends of the electrode (see Fig. 2). While Lee describes sandwiching the separator between the electrodes, a figure is not provided to explicitly show the relationship. However, a typical battery stack is shown in Doi, Fig. 1. In this case, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (see MPEP §§ 2143). In stacking the electrodes and separator of Lee based on the typical arrangement of electrodes and separator as shown by Doi, the prior art suggests the electrode layer includes: an electrode collector, an electrode active material layer located between the electrode collector and the solid electrolyte layer; and an electrode-side insulating layer located between the electrode collector and the electrode active material layer at ends of the electrode layer(see Fig. 2 of Lee and Fig 1 of Doi), the counter-electrode layer includes: a counter-electrode collector; a counter-electrode active material layer located between the counter-electrode collector and the solid electrolyte layer; and a counter-electrode-side insulating layer located between the counter-electrode collector and the counter-electrode active material layer at ends of the counter-electrode layer (see Fig. 2 of Lee and Fig 1 of Doi).
Lee does not suggest a length of the electrode-side insulating layer in a direction from an outer periphery toward a central part of the battery is greater than a length of the counter-electrode-side insulating layer in the direction from the outer periphery toward the central part of the battery. However, Lee suggests, in a plan view, a length (d2) of the binder layer 130 at the ends of the electrodes are 5-20% of a length (d1) of the electrode to prevent deintercalation during manufacturing or during use of the electrode, and to avoid decreasing the capacity of the electrode, see e.g., Fig. 2 and [0062-0063]. Further, Suga suggests controlling the volume of one electrode with respect to the other electrode using insulating materials at the ends of the electrodes to ensure the negative electrode volume is greater than the positive electrode volume from the standpoint of preventing/eliminating dendrite formation (i.e., when the negative electrode is less than the positive electrode dendrites form [0030-0031]). In increasing the length of the binder layer in the positive electrode compared to the binder layer of the negative electrode, one of ordinary skill in the art can ensure the volume of the negative electrode is larger than the positive electrode, hence there is an expectation of reducing or eliminating dendrite formation. Thus, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select the length d2 of the binder layer for each electrode such the electrode-side insulating layer (of the positive electrode) in a direction from an outer periphery toward a central part of the battery is greater than a length of the counter-electrode-side insulating layer (of the negative electrode) in the direction from the outer periphery toward the central part of the battery from the standpoint of ensuring the volume (hence capacity) of the negative electrode (counter-electrode layer) is greater than the positive electrode (electrode layer), hence preventing/eliminating dendrite formation (as suggested by Suga), while ensuring lack of deintercalation of the active material (at the ends) when manufacturing or using the electrodes as suggested by Lee.
Regarding Claim 2, Lee suggests a side surface of the electrode-side insulating layer and a side surface of the electrode collector are flush with each other, and a side surface of the counter-electrode-side insulating layer and a side surface of the counter-electrode collector are flush with each other, see Fig. 2.
Regarding Claim 3, Lee does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the electrode-side insulating layer is greater than or equal to half of a thickness of the electrode collector, and a thickness of the counter-electrode-side insulating layer is greater than or equal to half of a thickness of the counter-electrode collector. However, Lee suggests a thickness of the current collector is 3-500 microns, [0049-0059] and a thickness of the insulating layer (i.e., binder layer) with respect to the active material layer is 1-30% ([0060]). Further, Suga suggests a typical current collector thickness is 10-20 µm ([0043]), while (positive or negative) active material layers have a thickness of 10-150 µm ([0046, 0051]). All of the elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. Further, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the current collector thickness and active material thickness suggested by Suga and Lee as doing so is known in the prior art, and because the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art, MPEP 2144.07. In utilizing an active material layer having a thickness of 100 microns (as suggested by Suga), Lee suggests an insulating layer (i.e., binder layer, binder layer thickness is 1-30% of the active material thickness) having a thickness of 25 micron, thereby ensuring adhesion and cycling performance ([0046, 0059], Lee), and the prevention of deintercalation of the active layer at the ends of the electrode without decreasing capacity of the electrode ([0060, 0063], Lee); an insulation layer (i.e., binder layer) having a thickness of 25 microns is greater than or equal to half of a thickness of the current collectors (e.g., Suga suggests current collectors are 10-20µm; 20 microns/2 = 10 micron and 25 microns is greater than 10 microns). Thus, Lee and Suga suggest a thickness of the insulating layers with respect to the current collectors as claimed (i.e., a thickness of the electrode-side insulating layer is greater than or equal to half of a thickness of the electrode collector, and a thickness of the counter-electrode-side insulating layer is greater than or equal to half of a thickness of the counter-electrode collector).
Regarding Claims 5, and 7, Lee suggests at least one of the electrode-side insulating layer or the counter-electrode-side insulating layer contains resin, see e.g., [0055-0058] and electrode-side insulating layer and the counter-electrode-side insulating layer are made of the same material with the expectation preventing deintercalation of the active material when manufacturing and using material and from the standpoint of providing adhesion to the active layer, [0055-0059, 0063].
Regarding Claim 8, electrode area (length, width) is based on intended application (phone, hybrid car, etc.) and desired power density, see e.g., [0002, 0009] of Doi. Lee suggests the length d2 of the insulating layer (i.e., binder layer) is 5-20% the length of the electrode; thus, with small devices, where the length and width approaches smaller values, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the insulation layer (binder layer) length to approach values of 1 mm or smaller in the plan view.
Regarding Claim 9, Lee suggests the insulation layer (i.e., binder layer) thickness is 1-30% of the thickness of the electrode active layer, but does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the electrode active layer. However, Suga suggests a typical (positive or negative) active material layer has a thickness of 10-150 µm ([0046, 0051]). All of the elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. Further, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the active material thickness suggested by Suga as doing so is known in the prior art, and because the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art, MPEP 2144.07. In utilizing an active layer thickness of 10-150 microns, as suggested by Suga, Lee suggests an insulating layer (i.e., binder layer) thickness of greater than or equal to 5 microns (i.e., active layer thickness x (1-30%)) from the standpoint of adhering the active layer, preventing deintercalation of the active layer at the ends of the electrode without decreasing capacity of the electrode, see e.g., [0059-0060, 0063] of Lee.
Regarding Claims 10-11, Lee (as modified by Doi) suggests respective side surfaces of the solid electrolyte layer, the electrode collector, the electrode active material layer, the electrode-side insulating layer, the counter-electrode collector, the counter-electrode active material layer, and the counter-electrode-side insulating layer are exposed, and a side surface of the electrode layer, a side surface of the counter-electrode layer, and a side surface of the solid electrolyte layer are flush with one another (see e.g., Fig 2 of Lee and Fig. 1 of Doi).
Regarding Claim 14-15, Applicant attempts to differentiate the claimed product by the process in which it was made, i.e., “cut”. Applicant is reminded that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” (see In re Thorpe, 111 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP 2113. In this case, examiner interprets the claim such that a side surface of the battery (stack) is rectangular when the layers of the stack flush with each other; Lee as modified by Doi and Suga suggests stacked layers which are flush with each other, see Fig. 2 of Lee and Fig. 1 of Doi. Thus, the modification of Lee with Doi and Suga suggests a side surface of the battery is rectangular.
Regarding Claim 16, Lee forms the insulation layers (binder layers) on two sides of the current collector, but does not suggest the binder layer along the entire periphery of the current collector. However, Lee suggests the binder layer improves adhesion of the active material layer to the current collector, thereby minimizing resistance of the electrode. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the electrode-side insulating layer and the counter-electrode-side insulating layer are each provided around the outer periphery of the entire current collector (thereby forming a frame shape on an outer periphery of each electrode in the plan view) with the expectation of ensuring the adhesion of the active material layer to the current collector, hence further minimizing the resistance of each electrode.
Regarding Claim 19, Lee does not suggest the battery is a laminated battery comprising a plurality of batteries. However, Doi suggests stacking multiple batteries in order to increase power density ([0010-0011, 0014]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the battery of Lee is a laminated battery comprising a plurality of batteries with the expectation of increasing power density, as suggested by Doi.
Regarding Claim 20, Lee, as modified by Doi (see rejection of claim 19) suggests the plurality of batteries are laminated such that the electrode layers or the counter-electrode layers of adjacent ones of the plurality of batteries are adjacent to each other (Fig. 1 of Doi), and the laminated battery includes an electrode terminal (6, 9) that is in contact with respective side surfaces of the electrode collectors and the electrode layers, and a counter-electrode terminal (7, 9) that is in contact with respective side surfaces of the counter-electrode collectors and the counter-electrode layers with the expectation of outputting current from the battery to an external device, [0054]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide an electrode terminal along each side of the laminated battery stack such that an electrode terminal (e.g., 6, 9) is in contact with respective side surfaces of the electrode collectors and the electrode-side insulating layers in the electrode layers, and a counter-electrode terminal (e.g., 7, 9) that is in contact with respective side surfaces of the counter-electrode collectors and the counter-electrode-side insulating layers in the counter-electrode layers with the expectation of collecting and using the current from the battery to power an external device.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Doi, Suga further in view of Hyeon (KR 1998-073911), hereinafter Hyeon
Regarding Claim 12, Lee does not show the electrode active material layer with respect to the counter electrode active material layer in a plan view. However, Hyeon shows, in the plan view, the electrode active material layer and the counter-electrode active material layer have the same shape and position (see e.g., Fig. 2) and results in a battery of desirable capacity (e.g., 1000 mAh). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the electrode active material layer and the counter-electrode active material layer to have the have the same shape and position in the plan view with the expectation of forming a battery with a desirable capacity, as suggested by Hyeon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights