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 October 10, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
The Application filed on May 22, 2026 has been received. Claims 1-10 are currently pending. Claims 1 and 8 have been amended. Claim 10 is newly added.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) on claims 1-9 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haga on claims 1, 4, 6 and 9 are maintained.
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 in a part of a region 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
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haga on claims 2-3 are maintained.
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]).
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haga and Ariga on claims 5 and 7-8 are maintained.
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]).
Claim(s) 10 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 Takahiro (JP 2020013637 A; as found in IDS dated 12/01/2025 and using machine translation for citation purposes).
As to Claim 10, Haga does not specifically disclose the claimed insulating frame.
However, Takahiro teaches of a battery comprising; a insulating member 80 disposed at a circumferential end of an electrode layer 50 and an insulating frame 13 disposed at a circumferential end of an electrode layer and in contact with the insulating member 80 (Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0032-0033]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of Haga to comprise the claimed insulating frame because Takahiro teaches that vibrations to the battery can be suppressed (paragraph [0032]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 22, 2026 with respect to the independent claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principle arguments are:
a) Haga does not disclose wherein “outer circumferential ends of the lithium metal layer do not extend to outer circumferential ends of the solid electrolyte layer, and an insulation member extending from the solid electrolyte layer towards the lithium metal layer is disposed in a part of a region between the outer circumferential end of the lithium metal layer and the outer circumferential end of the solid electrolyte layer” (claim 1).
b) The claimed invention achieves the effect of being “possible to provide a solid-state battery capable of improving durability” (claim 1).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
a) Haga does disclose wherein outer circumferential ends of the lithium metal layer 30 do not extend to outer circumferential ends of the solid electrolyte layer 10 (Fug. 3). Haga does disclose wherein the insulating member 32 is disposed in a part of a region between the outer end of the solid electrolyte layer 10 and the outer end of the lithium metal layer 30 at least diagonally as shown in reproduced Fig. 3 above.
b) In response to applicant's argument that the present invention makes it possible to provide a solid-state battery capable of improving durability, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Conclusion
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 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 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
Prosecution Insights