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 .
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.
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(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0126253 to Oura in view of JP 2022014285 A to Yamauchi (relying on English language translation provided in IDS).
Claims 1-2, 9, 11, 13:
Oura teaches a method form forming a slurry for an all solid state battery (abstract). The process includes forming a slurry that is applied as a coated layer to a substrate [0106-0109]. A slurry for forming the solid electrolyte layer includes a solid electrolyte, binder, and solvent [0096-0097, 0072]. The binder can be selected from rubber based and fluorine based binder [0092].
Although Oura teaches mixing/kneading to form the slurry [0074], filtering is not disclosed.
However, Yamauchi teaches a method for slurry preparation (abstract) wherein a binder and organic solvent were mixed to form a solution, the solution was filtered through a 3 µm cartridge filter to remove undissolved resin and contaminants to form a filtrate (i.e., the material that passes through the filter), and the filtrate is combined with inorganic fine particles [0057-0058].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Oura and filter the binder and solvent solution in order to remove undissolved resin and contaminants. This predictably results in a more consistent process by the removal of undissolved resin and contaminants.
Claims 3, 12:
Yamauchi only teaches a 3 µm cartridge filter. However, the size of filter aperture is selected based on purity requirements and the size of the impurity particles. In this respect, the aperture size is a result effective variable and would have been obvious through routine optimization. The same analysis applies to the concentration of binder in the binder solution.
Claim 4:
As noted above, the filter removes undissolved resin and contaminates, which is analogous to gel particles.
Claim 5:
Oura teaches the addition of active material to form the other layers of the all solid state battery [0088-0095]. Yamauchi also teaches lithium oxide composition as part of the inorganic fine particles [0038].
Claim 6:
Yamauchi teaches the method for forming an all-solid-state battery comprising a positive electrode, a solid electrolyte, and a negative electrode [0049]. This structure is taken to be the power generation element. The electrolyte layer is formed from the slurry composition that has been coated on a temporary support (i.e., base material) [0047]. The electrolyte layer is later removed from the temporary support and laminated with the other layers to form the battery [0050]. Oura teaches a similar process for manufacturing an all solid state battery [0102-0125].
Claims 7-8, 10, 14-15:
Oura teaches SBR [0092] and tetralin [0059].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/17/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The “consisting essentially of” language incorporated into claim 1 is being treated as “comprising” because the specification does not set forth the basic and novel characteristics of the solvent. The definition provided in Applicant’s specification in page 5 does not overcome this requirement.
Allowable Subject Matter
The examiner has identified the combination of claims 12 and 13 as likely allowable subject matter if both are incorprated into claim 1.
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 ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights