DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted July 20, 2023 and December 23, 2025, have been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
4. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
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.
5. Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 8-10 recite “the content ratio” but this limitation lacks antecedent basis because there have not been any thicknesses mentioned in Claim 1, upon which Claims 8-10 depend.
6. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 11 recites “the thickness of the second solid electrolyte layer is smaller than the thickness of the first solid electrolyte layer” but this limitation lacks antecedent basis because there have not been any thicknesses mentioned in Claim 1, upon which Claim 11 depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
7. Claims 1-4, 6, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsutsumi JP2015-213007.
Regarding Claims 1-3 and 13-15, Tsutsumi discloses a battery (electrochemical device) comprising a first electrode (which is a positive electrode, para 0014, meeting Claims 3 and 15), a second electrode (which is a negative electrode, para 0014, meeting Claims 3 and 15), and a solid electrolyte layer located between the first electrode and the second electrode and including a fibrous material (para 0014), wherein the solid electrolyte layer includes a first solid electrolyte layer (“electrolyte layer”) and a second solid electrolyte layer (“fibrous polymer electrolyte”) located between the first solid electrolyte layer and the second electrode (“a positive electrode, a fibrous polymer electrolyte, and an electrolyte layer can be laminated by uniformly arranging a fibrous polymer electrolyte on a positive electrode and then placing a separately prepared solid electrolyte membrane on top of it and applying pressure, and an electrochemical device can be manufactured by further laminating a negative electrode on top of it”, para 0014), which also meets Claim 13, and the content ratio of the fibrous material in the second solid electrolyte layer is higher than the content ratio of the fibrous material in the first solid electrolyte layer since there is no fibrous material in the first solid electrolyte layer (also meeting Claims 2 and 14) (see entire disclosure and especially paras 0010-015).
Regarding Claim 4, Tsutsumi discloses wherein the negative electrode includes a negative electrode active material which includes titanium (e.g. titanium dioxide or lithium titanate, para 0013).
Regarding Claims 6 and 12, Tsutsumi discloses in paras 0017-0018 that the solid electrolyte layer and the fibrous polymer electrolyte layer of the battery both comprise a solid electrolyte comprising PCEO and PVdF-HFP polymers, PVdF-HFP being a polypropylene derivative, and therefore being “a polyolefin”, meeting Claim 6), and lithium ion salt, and so this material is the first solid electrolyte and the second solid electrolyte, and it is implied and understood and, most importantly, inherent, that the electrolytes have lithium ion conductivity.
Regarding Claim 11, Tsutsumi discloses wherein the thickness of the second solid electrolyte layer (0.014 mm, para 0017) is smaller than the thickness of the first solid electrolyte layer (0.12 mm, para 0018).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
7. Claims 5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsumi JP2015-213007, as applied to Claims 1 and 6, and further in view of Roumi WO2013-154623.
Regarding Claim 5, Tsutsumi discloses the claimed battery as described in the rejection of Claim 1 and 6, which are incorporated herein in their entireties. Tsutsumi fails to specifically disclose wherein the negative electrode active material includes silicon. However, in the same field of endeavor of the design of separator type elements for batteries, Roumi teaches that in lithium ion batteries, known negative electrode active materials include titanium dioxide and lithium titanate and also silicon as functional equivalents (para 0059) and so it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the battery of Tsutsumi such that the negative electrode active material includes silicon because Roumi teaches that in lithium ion batteries, known negative electrode active materials include titanium dioxide and lithium titanate and silicon as functional equivalents.
Regarding Claim 7, Tsutsumi discloses the claimed battery as described in the rejection of Claim 1 and 6, which are incorporated herein in their entireties. Tsutsumi fails to specifically disclose wherein the fibrous material includes polypropylene. However, Roumi teaches that in lithium ion batteries, dendrite formation is an issue, and a solution is the design of separators using solid electrolytes, such that solid electrolytes are beneficially embedded in supporting fiber systems (and stacked with other layers having complementarily-positioned apertures filled with solid electrolyte) in order to increase a toughness of a solid electrolyte material while preventing pinhole cracks in the solid electrolyte during fabrication and due to cycling (see entire disclosure and especially paras 0016-0020, 00125-0128, especially 0127 which mentions high mechanical strength polymer fibers and para 0043 which mentions polypropylene as a high mechanical strength polymer). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the battery of Tsutsumi such that the fibrous material including polyolefin is e.g. polypropylene and e.g. such that the fibrous second electrolyte layer is designed using Roumi’s structure since Roumi teaches that such fibrous materials formed as layers combined with solid electrolyte form layers with high mechanical strength that are resistant to formation of pinholes during construction and cycling of the battery.
Regarding Claims 8-10, Tsutsumi does not specifically disclose wherein the content ratio of the fibrous material in the second solid electrolyte layer is greater than or equal to 0.05 mass% and less than or equal to 5 mass%, or greater than or equal to 0.1 mass% or less than or equal to 1 mass%, or greater than or equal to 0.1 mass% and less than or equal to 0.2 mass% (addressing the ranges of Claims 8, 9, and 10). However, Roumi teaches that the beneficial design includes a polymer volume ratio is e.g. about 5% (para 0281) and so it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the optimal volume ratio of fibers to solid electrolyte in the second solid electrolyte layer of Tsutsumi such that the ratio can be about 5 volume% because Roumi teaches that this value is known to be beneficial in the given design. Although Tsutsumi modified by Roumi does not specifically discuss the mass% (and instead discusses vol%), the skilled artisan knows that the density of polypropylene is about 0.9 g/mL, and so the mass% would be close to but slightly below the given volume%, in a range that is overlapping the range of Claim 8 and close to, but not overlapping, the ranges of Claims 9 and 10.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that 'suitable protection' is provided if the protective layer is 'about' 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant's] claimed range."). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.).
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ito JP2012-089420 discloses a solid electrolyte 35 for a battery wherein the electrolyte layer is filled with insulating needle-like fillers 25 formed of e.g. resin (which can be likened to fibers) that are useful to suppress local deformation (see e.g. paras 0048-0049).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
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 Tavares-Crockett can be reached on 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729