DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
3. In response to the amendment received on 12/1/2025:
Claims 1-11 and 13-15 are pending in the current application. Claim 1, 11, and 13 have been amended and Claim 12 is cancelled.
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 is overcome in light of the amendment.
Most of the prior-art based rejections have been maintained in light of the amendment and are reworded only to reflect new claim limitations. The rejection of Claim 6 is withdrawn. All changes made to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
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 § 102
5. 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” containing e.g. LiFTSA (para 0017, i.e. LiTFSI, a solid 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, the first solid electrolyte layer includes a first solid electrolyte, the second solid electrolyte layer includes a second solid electrolyte (LiTFSI/LiTFSA, solid electrolyte), both the solid electrolyte layer comprising lithium ion conductive solid electrolyte, and the fibrous polymer electrolyte layer (containing LiTFSA/LiTFSI) having lithium ion conductivity (inherently) 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 0010-017).
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 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
6. 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.).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 6 recites that the fibrous material includes a polyolefin. As Applicant correctly and convincingly points out in the remarks filed 7/10/2026, the closest prior art, Tsusumi, does not disclose wherein the fibrous material includes a polyolefin material and there is no prior art available to teach the claimed invention. It is known to use polyolefin fiber separator in conjunction with a solid electrolyte (see e.g Liu CN 106450440, para 0061) but the skilled artisan would not find it obvious to replace the ion-conductive fibers of Tsusumi with ion non ion-conductive polypropylene fiber material of Liu, and further, even if the first solid electrolyte layer of Tsusumi were combined with a polyolefin fiber separator of Liu, the content ratio of fibrous material as stated in Claim 1 would not be met or obvious.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims are based on the claims as amended. The amended claims have been addressed in the new rejection above.
Further, Applicant's arguments filed July 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Arguments directed at claim 1
9. Applicant argues that Tsutsumi does not describe the solid electrolyte layer includes a first solid electrolyte layer and a second solid electrolyte layer especially since the fibrous polymer electrolyte of Tsutsumi is merely a separate layer, and Tsutsumi does not describe that the first and second solid electrolytes have lithium-ion conductivity, and further argues that Tsutsumi is directed toward disposing a fibrous polymer electrolyte between the electrolyte layer and an electrode and distinguishes the fibrous polymer electrolyte from the electrolyte layer, while Applicant’s invention specifically focuses on the claimed configuration (which has benefits that are described in Applicant’s specification).
The Office has considered this argument and respectfully disagrees. It is submitted that the Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claim language. The term “solid electrolyte layer includes a first solid electrolyte layer and a second solid electrolyte layer” does not have any specific properties except that it is a solid electrolyte layer formed of two sub-layers, essentially, that each have solid electrolyte, and the term “second solid electrolyte layer includes a second solid electrolyte” does not impart any specific properties or characteristics to the claimed structure except that it is a layer that has a solid electrolyte, which Tsutsumi clearly provides. Lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonide)imide (LiTFSA) is a known lithium salt having lithium ion conductivity and is in both solid electrolyte layers of Tsutsumi and provides lithium ion conductivity to both layers.
Further, Applicant’s arguments directed to the benefit gained from the claimed structure are not convincing because In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. the benefits gained by the structure of Applicant’s invention) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
10. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights