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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite because “the second principal surface” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-10, 13, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chikigawa, et. al. (WO2021070927A, see EPO Machine Translation for citations).
Regarding Claim 1, Chikigawa recites a solid-state battery package comprising: a substrate (“[p.6] a mounting board”); a solid-state battery (solid state battery 500) on the substrate; and an exterior part that covers the solid-state battery (protective layer 300), wherein the exterior part comprises a plurality of corners (Fig. 3, 5 (iii) of Chikigawa), and at least a top surface-side corner of the plurality of corners has an outward curved surface that is curved outward relative to the solid-state battery (Fig. 3, 5 (iii) of Chikigawa). Chikigawa at Fig. 3, 5 (iii), [p.4-6].
PNG
media_image1.png
235
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
516
387
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 and 5 (iii) of Chikigawa.
Because Chikigawa discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, Claim 1 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
Chikigawa recites the plurality of corners comprise a plurality of the top surface-side corners, and wherein a top surface-side ridge connecting adjacent top surface-side corners among the plurality of top surface-side corners is an outward curved surface relative to the solid-state battery, because there are at least four curved corners within Fig. 5 (iii), and because the “ridge” is the line in the z direction which starts the slope of the side portion away from the battery. Chikigawa at Fig. 5 (iii). Further, the cross section in Fig. 3 also supports a “plurality of corners,” and the ovular shape indicates a similar “ridge” as above.
Claim 2 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 relies upon Claim 2. Claim 2 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
Chikigawa recites the top surface-side ridge is a boundary part between a first surface region and a second surface region that are adjacent to each other (i.e. the top face being a first surface region and a side face of the cube / prism shown in Fig. 3, 5 (iii)) and that extend in different directions (i.e. extending in a different, but intersecting plane), and the outward curved surface of the top surface-side ridge extends from the first surface region to the second surface region (see the curved portions in cross section, as shown in Fig. 3).
Claim 3 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 relies upon Claim 3. Claim 3 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
Chikigawa teaches wherein the exterior part comprises a bottom surface-side corner covering the substrate (the bottom surface being the bottom face of the prism / cube with curved edges of Fig. 3 of Chikigawa), and the bottom surface-side corner comprises an outward curved surface relative to the solid-state battery (see Fig. 3 of Chikigawa).
Claim 4 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
Chikigawa recites the exterior part comprises a plurality of bottom surface-side corners covering the substrate (i.e. the two corners shown in Fig. 3, and the three shown in Fig. 5 (iii)), and a bottom surface-side ridge (the curved portion between the bottom surface and the side surfaces) connecting a first bottom surface-side corner (for our purposes, this is the left side as shown in Fig. 3) and a second bottom surface-side corner (the right side as shown in Fig. 3) adjacent to each other among the plurality of bottom surface-side corners comprises an outward curved surface relative to the solid-state battery.
Claim 5 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
Chikigawa teaches the exterior part comprises a bottom surface-side corner covering the substrate (i.e. the two corners shown in Fig. 3, and the three shown in Fig. 5 (iii)), and a side surface-side ridge connecting the top surface-side corner and the bottom surface-side corner ridge (the curved portion between the bottom surface and the side surfaces) comprises an outward curved surface relative to the solid-state battery (see Fig 3, 5(ii) of Chikigawa.
Claim 6 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
Chikigawa teaches “[p.6] In one aspect, it is preferable that the protective layers 300 and 300α are made of a resin-free insulating material (see FIGS 1 to 4).” Chikigawa at [p.6]. Chikigawa further teaches two layers. This indicates the protective layer 300 (i.e. the exterior part) comprises a covering insulating layer that covers at least a top surface and a side surface of the solid-state battery, and a covering inorganic layer on the covering insulating layer (because two layers, 300 and 300a are disclosed, and they may be the same material, these two layers disclose this relationship) and at least the covering inorganic layer comprises a curved inorganic surface curved outward at the outward curved surface relative to the solid-state battery (see Fig. 3).
Claim 8 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 relies upon Claim 8. Claim 8 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
Chikigawa recites the components of the protective layer 300 all curve together in Fig. 3, 5 (iii). For this reason, Chikigawa recites a sectional view, the covering insulating layer located inside the curved inorganic surface comprises a curved insulating surface curved outward relative to the solid-state battery.
Claim 9 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 relies upon Claim 9. Claim 9 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
Chikigawa recites the components of the protective layer 300 all curve together in Fig. 3, 5 (iii). Because the protective layers 300, 300a disclose a multilayer wherein the two layers may both be inorganic insulating layers, this means the curved inorganic surface on the outer portion of the multilayer must have a larger radius of curvature because it is further from the center of the battery. For this reason, Chikigawa recites in a sectional view, the curved inorganic surface is larger in radius of curvature than the curved insulating surface.
Claim 10 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 relies upon Claim 2. Claim 2 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
Chikigawa teaches “[p.6] In one aspect, it is preferable that the protective layers 300 and 300α are made of a resin-free insulating material (see FIGS 1 to 4).” Chikigawa at [p.6]. Chikigawa thus teaches two layers 300, 300a. Chikigawa recites the components of the protective layer 300 all curve together in Fig. 3, 5 (iii). Because the protective layers 300, 300a disclose a multilayer wherein the two layers may both be inorganic insulating layers, this means the curved inorganic surface on the outer portion of the multilayer must have a larger radius of curvature because it is further from the center of the battery.
For this reason, Chikigawa recites the exterior part comprises a covering insulating layer that covers at least a top surface (the top surface of the battery shown in Fig. 3) and a side surface of the solid-state battery (the side surface shown in Fig. 3), and a covering inorganic layer on the covering insulating layer (as described above), at least the covering inorganic layer comprises a curved inorganic surface curved outward at the outward curved surface relative to the solid-state battery, a top surface-side ridge connecting the top surface-side corners adjacent to each other comprises the curved inorganic surface curved outward (because the two layers curve together, they are both curved outward), and the curved inorganic surface at the top surface-side corner is larger in radius of curvature than the curved inorganic surface at the top surface-side ridge (see discussion above).
Claim 13 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 relies upon Claim 13. Claim 13 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
Chikigawa teaches “[p.6] In one aspect, it is preferable that the protective layers 300 and 300α are made of a resin-free insulating material (see FIGS 1 to 4).” Chikigawa at [p.6].” Chikigawa thus teaches two layers 300, 300a. Chikigawa recites the components of the protective layer 300 all curve together in Fig. 3, 5 (iii). Because the protective layers 300, 300a disclose a multilayer wherein the two layers may both be inorganic insulating layers, this means the curved inorganic surface on the outer portion of the multilayer must have a larger radius of curvature because it is further from the center of the battery.
PNG
media_image3.png
693
593
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 and 4 of Chikigawa.
Further, Fig. 4 depicts an embodiment wherein the radius at the “corner” (defined as where the curvature of the curved side surface begins) is greater than that of the “ridge” (defined here as where the right corner of the battery plate enclosure meets the slope of the curved side surface).
For this reason, Chikigawa recites in a sectional view, the covering insulating layer located inside the curved inorganic surface at the top surface-side ridge comprises a curved insulating surface curved outward relative to the solid-state battery, and the curved insulating surface at the top surface-side corner is larger in radius of curvature than the curved insulating surface at the top surface-side ridge.
Claim 15 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
Regarding Claim 21, Claim 21 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
Chikigawa recites the solid-state battery package has a rectangular shape in a sectional view (i.e. the rectangular space containing the electrode plates in Fig. 3-5 (iii) shown above), and the plurality of corners of the exterior part covering the solid-state battery each comprise an outward curved surface relative to the solid-state battery. Chikigawa at Fig. 3-5 (iii).
Claim 21 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chikigawa.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
Chikigawa teaches an outward curved surface, but is silent as to the radius of curvature.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the battery of Chikigawa such that the outward curved surface has a radius of curvature of 35 μm to 250 μm, because where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 (IV).
Claim 7 is obvious over Chikigawa.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 relies upon Claim 8. Claim 8 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
Chikigawa teaches a curved inorganic surface at the top surface-side corner, but is silent as to the radius of curvature.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the battery of Chikigawa such that the curved inorganic surface at the top surface-side corner has a radius of curvature of 120 μm to 250 μm in a sectional view, because where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 (IV).
Claim 11 is obvious over Chikigawa.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 relies upon Claim 9. Claim 9 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
Chikigawa teaches a curved inorganic surface and a curved insulating surface at the top surface-side corner, but is silent as to the radius of curvature.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the battery of Chikigawa such that the curved insulating surface at the top surface-side corner has a radius of curvature of 45 μm to 150 μm in a sectional view, because where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 (IV).
Claim 12 is obvious over Chikigawa.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 relies upon Claim 13. Claim 13 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
Chikigawa teaches a curved inorganic surface and a curved insulating surface at the top surface-side corner, but is silent as to the radius of curvature.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the battery of Chikigawa such that the curved inorganic surface of the top surface-side ridge has a radius of curvature of 80 μm to 200 μm, because where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 (IV).
Claim 14 is obvious over Chikigawa.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 relies upon Claim 13. Claim 13 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
Chikigawa teaches the covering insulating layer located inside the curved inorganic surface at the top surface-side ridge comprises a curved insulating surface curved outward relative to the solid-state battery (see Fig. 3-4 above). Chikigawa teaches a curved inorganic surface and a curved insulating surface at the top surface-side corner, but is silent as to the radius of curvature.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the battery of Chikigawa such that in a sectional view, the covering insulating layer located inside the curved inorganic surface at the top surface-side ridge comprises a curved insulating surface curved outward relative to the solid-state battery, and the curved insulating surface at the top surface-side ridge has a radius of curvature of 35 μm to 120 μm, because where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 (IV).
Claim 16 is obvious over Chikigawa.
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 18 relies upon Claim 4. Claim 4 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
Chikigawa teaches in a sectional view, the outward curved surface at the top surface-side corner is different in radius of curvature than that of the outward curved surface at the bottom surface-side corner (i.e., the inner curvature has a lower radius than that of the outer curve, similar to a racetrack; see Fig. 3).
Claim 19 is obvious over Chikigawa.
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 relies upon Claim 4. Claim 4 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
Chikigawa teaches in a sectional view, the outward curved surface at the top surface-side corner has a larger radius of curvature than the outward curved surface at the bottom surface-side corner (i.e., the inner curvature has a lower radius than that of the outer curve, similar to a racetrack; see Fig. 3)..
Claim 20 is obvious over Chikigawa.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chikigawa, in view of Nishide, et. al. (WO2020203879A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 relies upon Claim 8. Claim 8 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
Chikigawa teaches a mountable substrate, but is silent as to the structure of the substrate.
PNG
media_image4.png
553
445
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 and 2 of Nishide.
Nishide teaches, “In the present invention, the solid-state battery is packaged by being configured to be wrapped with a substrate and a covering member. In particular, it is preferable that the solid-state battery is packaged so as to be suitable for surface mounting, and the substrate is a terminal substrate.” Nishide at [p.7], Fig. 1-2. Further, this substate 10 is disposed along the base of the battery as shown in Fig. 2. This “wrapped with a covering member,” reads upon “the substrate comprises a first main surface facing the solid-state battery and a second main surface on a side opposite to the first main surface,” wherein a covering layer extends along the substrate. The Office notes that because the second principal surface lacks antecedent basis, this is treated as though the covering layer covers the entirety of the package as described by Nishide. This provides the benefit of “a main object of the present invention is to provide a solid-state battery packaging technology that contributes to compactification while having sealing characteristics.” Id. at [p.1].
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify substrate of Chikigawa, such that substrate comprises a first main surface facing the solid-state battery and a second main surface on a side opposite to the first main surface, the covering inorganic layer extends to the second principal surface, and the substrate located inside the curved inorganic surface is curved outward in a sectional view relative to the solid-state battery, because Nishide teaches a benefit to compactification while having sealing characteristics.
Claim 17 is obvious over Chikigawa, in view of Nishide.
Claims 18 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chikigawa, in view of Lee, et. al. (KR20150074888A).
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 relies upon Claim 8. Claim 8 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
Chikigawa teaches the protective layer is composed of two films, but as claimed in Claim 18, this would require at least three films, wherein the covering inorganic layer is two or more inorganic films.
Lee teaches a solid state battery 100 (i.e. composed of “all solid materials,” at [p.1]), wherein the battery comprises a substrate 10, and a protective layer 30 (see Fig. 1); Lee teaches this protective layer 30 may comprise “[p.3] a laminated film in which a plurality of thin films are stacked. Specifically, the protective layer 30 includes a plurality of inorganic composite thin films 31 and a plurality of metal thin films 32, and the plurality of inorganic composite thin films 31 and the plurality of metal thin films 32 are alternately stacked one by one.” This provides the benefit of “achiev[ing] stable battery performance in the air by increasing the density of the protective layer.” Id. at [p.1].
PNG
media_image5.png
250
432
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Lee.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the protective layer of Chikigawa, such that the covering inorganic layer is a composite inorganic film that has two or more laminated inorganic films, and each of the two or more laminated inorganic films are curved outward at the outward curved surface in a sectional view relative to the solid-state battery, because Lee teaches a benefit to stable battery performance.
Claim 18 is obvious over Chikigawa, in view of Lee.
Regarding Claim 21, Claim 21 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is anticipated by Chikigawa.
Lee teaches a solid state battery 100 (i.e. composed of “all solid materials,” at [p.1]), wherein the battery comprises a substrate 10, and a protective layer 30 (see Fig. 1); Lee teaches this protective layer 30 may comprise “[p.3] a laminated film in which a plurality of thin films are stacked. Specifically, the protective layer 30 includes a plurality of inorganic composite thin films 31 and a plurality of metal thin films 32, and the plurality of inorganic composite thin films 31 and the plurality of metal thin films 32 are alternately stacked one by one.” This provides the benefit of “achiev[ing] stable battery performance in the air by increasing the density of the protective layer.” Id. at [p.1.].
PNG
media_image5.png
250
432
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Lee.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the protective layer of Chikigawa, such that the covering inorganic layer is a composite inorganic film that has two or more laminated inorganic films, and each of the two or more laminated inorganic films are curved outward at the outward curved surface in a sectional view relative to the solid-state battery, because Lee teaches a benefit to stable battery performance.
Claim 21 is obvious over Chikigawa.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNA RAJAN HAMMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-9997. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:30 PM M-F.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.R.H./Examiner , Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725