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 .
SOLID-STATE BATTERY
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/356,251 Art Unit: 1727 February 19, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
The Application filed on July 21, 2023 has been received. Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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.
Claims 1-9 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. Claim 1 recites “an outer circumferential end of the lithium metal layer exists more to an inner side than an outer circumferential end of the solid electrolyte layer” which is indefinite. It is unclear as to what structure Applicant is intending to claim. What are the defined boundaries for the ”inner side” of the solid electrolyte layer. Is Applicant intending to claim the center of the solid electrolyte layer? Is the claim reciting that at least one outer end of the lithium metal layer is closer to the center of the solid electrolyte layer than the outer end of the electrolyte layer? Or is the Applicant intending to claim that the ends of the lithium metal layer do not extends to the outer ends of the solid electrolyte layer, as shown in Fig. 1-2 of the original disclosure? For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner will construe the claim such that the outer ends of the lithium metal layer do not extend to the outer ends of the solid electrolyte layer, as shown in Fig. 1-2 of the original disclosure.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the insulation members which are opposing" in 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haga et al. (WO 2019/103008 A1; as found in IDS dated 12/01/2025 and using machine translation for citation purposes).
As to Claim 1, Haga discloses a solid-state battery, comprising: a solid electrolyte layer 10 and a positive electrode composite layer 20 sequentially laminated on a lithium metal layer 30 (Abstract, Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0030-0031]). Haga discloses wherein the outer circumferential end of the lithium metal layer does not extend to the outer circumferential end of the solid electrolyte layer, and an insulating member 32 extends from the solid electrolyte layer towards the lithium metal layer and is disposed in a region between the outer circumferential end of the lithium metal layer and the outer circumferential end of the solid electrolyte layer (as shown in reproduced Fig. 3 below; the arrow depicts where the insulating member is disposed between the outer end of the lithium metal layer and the outer end of the solid electrolyte layer).
PNG
media_image1.png
170
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 4, Haga discloses wherein the insulating member 32 is placed on the solid electrolyte layer 10, which reads on being fixed thereto (Fig. 3).
As to Claim 6, Haga discloses a battery case for housing the battery components (reads on being packaged in an external member) (paragraph [0091]).
As to Claim 9, Haga discloses a second insulating member 32 that is disposed on a same plane as the positive electrode 20 when viewed in the cross-section view (which reads on being disposed at an outer circumferential part of the positive electrode layer) and the outer circumferential end of the second insulating member exists at the same position as the outer circumferential end of the solid electrolyte layer (Fig. 2).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haga et al. (WO 2019/103008 A1; as found in IDS dated 12/01/2025 and using machine translation for citation purposes).
As to Claims 2-3, Haga teaches wherein the battery case is rectangular and the electrode body is stacked therein; and wherein the insulating member 32 is placed at all (and opposing) corners of the lithium metal layer (Fig. 3 and paragraph [0091]). Haga does not specifically disclose wherein the lithium metal layer is rectangular. However, the courts have held that the claimed shape is a matter of choice which a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the claim is significant, see MPEP 2144.04, IV, B. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the electrode body to match the rectangular shape of the container of Haga because Haga teaches that such a battery can be used for powering vehicles (paragraph [0091]).
Claim(s) 5, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haga et al. (WO 2019/103008 A1; as found in IDS dated 12/01/2025 and using machine translation for citation purposes) in view of Ariga et al. (US 2022/0231329 A1).
As to Claim 5, Haga does not specifically disclose the claimed concave part.
However, Ariga teaches of a solid-state battery, comprising: a current collector 15a comprising a concave part 15c that matches an opposing convex part 12b of an electrode layer 12a (Fig. 3 and paragraph [0047]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the conceptual teachings of Ariga of connecting adjacent parts of a solid-state battery with matching concave/convex parts to the solid electrolyte layer and insulating layer of Haga because Ariga teaches that the concave/convex parts engage with each other and facilitates alignment and prevents misalignment when assembling the cell (paragraph [0048]).
As to Claim 7, Haga does not specifically disclose the claimed collector.
However, Ariga teaches of a negative electrode comprising a current collector 20a (Fig. 3 and paragraph [0026]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the negative electrode of Haga to comprise a current collector because Ariga teaches that a solid-state battery with simplified manufacturing is obtained (paragraph [0018]). In addition, the courts have held that the particular placement of the insulating members in relation to the current collectors and solid electrolyte layer are an obvious matter of design choice which would not have modified the operation of the device absent persuasive evidence, see MPEP 2144.04, VI, C.
As to Claim 8, Haga discloses of a plurality of electrode stacks (Fig. 3). Haga does not specifically disclose the claimed concave/convex parts.
However, Ariga teaches of a solid-state battery, comprising: a current collector 15a comprising a concave part 15c that matches an opposing convex part 12b of an electrode layer 12a (Fig. 3 and paragraph [0047]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the conceptual teachings of Ariga of connecting adjacent parts of a solid-state battery with matching concave/convex parts to the insulating members of Haga because Ariga teaches that the concave/convex parts engage with each other and facilitates alignment and prevents misalignment when assembling the cell (paragraph [0048]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727