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 .
Claims 14-20 are pending in the application.
Claims 1-13 are withdrawn in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/31/2023 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because: English translation of International Search Report dated September 22, 2023 of PCT Patent Application No. PCT/KR2023/008854 was not provided.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 14-20 in the reply filed on 7/20/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-13 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected process of making an all-solid rechargeable battery, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/20/2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the instant specification discloses in paragraph 0012 and 0016 “the elastic sheet includes polyurethane, polyacrylate, silicon, fluorine-based polymer, a copolymer thereof, or a combination thereof” and in paragraph 00175 instant specification discloses “the elastic sheet is replaced with an elastic sheet formed silicon”, where as in paragraph 0038, it is specified as “the elastic sheet may include, for example, polyurethane, polyacrylate, silicone, a fluorine-based polymer, a copolymer thereof, or a combination thereof”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 recites “the elastic sheet includes polyurethane, polyacrylate, silicon, fluorine- based polymer, a copolymer thereof” should be corrected to “silicone”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 20 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 20 recites “ the elastic sheet is at an outermost side of the stack inside the battery case”, it is unclear how the elastic sheet between the unit cells recited in claim 14 can also be present at an outermost side of the stack inside the battery case rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
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.
Claims 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta (US PG Pub. 2021/0020995 A1) in view of Terada (US PG Pub. 2013/0302659 A1).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Ohta discloses all-solid-state rechargeable battery (ref. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, figure 1-5, para. 0012), comprising: a stack having two or more-unit cells, each unit cell including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a solid electrolyte layer between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (para. 0012), a sheet between the unit cells (stress relaxation layer ref. 16, 26 and 36, figure 1, para. 0016), and a battery case housing the stack (exterior body, ref. 17 and 27, figure 1, para. 0017, 0028), wherein the sheet comprises a polymer including elastomeric polymer (i.e. styrene butadiene rubber) and acrylic-based resin (para. 0014, 0064),
Ohta fails to disclose the polymer has a glass transition temperature (Tg) of about -150 °C to about 0'C.
Terada discloses a battery pack device in which battery cells are lined up and a thermally conductive member (ref. 1, figure 2-3) that is arranged between battery cells when assembling the battery cells into a battery pack (para. 0002) and the thermally conductive member includes a polymer includes a polymer that is a thermoplastic elastomer (para. 0030 - 0032).
Terada further discloses the thermally conductive member comprises acrylic polymer that has a glass transition temperature (Tg) of −5° C. or lower, and more preferably of −10° C. or lower in order to obtain a balance of the adhesion properties (pressure sensitive adhesive properties) and the glass transition temperature (Tg) of the acrylic polymer can be adjusted to within the above-described range by appropriately changing the used monomer components and composition ratio (para. 0034, 0056). Terada’s disclosed glass transition temperature range overlaps with the claimed range of -150 °C to about 0oC (MPEP 2144.05(I)). Terada further discloses that if the glass transition temperature is higher than −5° C the polymer may not flow easily, wetting onto the adherend may not be sufficient, and the adhesive strength may deteriorate (para. 0056).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the acrylic polymer having Tg of -5oC or lower as the acrylic-based resin of Ohta to have a glass transition temperature in the claimed range as taught by Terada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the elastic sheet including a polymer which has a glass transition temperature in the disclosed range so that the polymer would have good adhesive strength.
Regarding claim 16, Ohta discloses the elastic sheet in the battery case has a thickness of equal to or greater than 100 μm overlapping with the claimed range of about 40 µm to about 400 µm (para. 0065).
Regarding claim 17, there is no disclosure in Ohta in view of Terada of the compressive strain of the elastic sheet. However, given that Ohta in view of Terada disclose elastic sheet as presently claimed including Tg that overlaps that presently claimed, within the overlapping range, the elastic sheet would necessarily inherently have the same compressive strain as presently claimed. As set forth in MPEP 2112.01, Part II, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Regarding claim 18, Ohta discloses an aluminum or stainless-steel battery case (support body, para. 0074) thereby meeting the claim limitation of the battery case is a can type.
Regarding claim 20, Ohta discloses the elastic sheet (ref. 16, 36) is at an outermost side (figure 1) of the stack inside the battery case (support body, para. 0031).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta (US PG Pub. 2021/0020995 A1) in view of Terada (US PG Pub. 2013/0302659 A1) as applied to claims 14, 15, 16 and 20 above, and further in view of Lupart (US PG Pub. 2017/0040644 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Ohta and Terada are relied upon as discussed above.
Ohta fails to disclose the elastic sheet has a compressive strain of about 30% to about 70% under a pressure of 6 MPa at 25 0C
Lupart discloses multiplicity of all-solid-state rechargeable battery cell stacked and each cell having a positive electrode and a negative electrode and a solid electrolyte layer between them (para. 0007). Lupart further discloses an elastic sheet (elastically deformable compensation element, ref. EL figure 1A-2B) arranged before and/or after a stack sequence of cathode collector layer, cathode layer, solid electrolyte layer, anode layer, and, optionally, anode collector layer (para. 0014).
Lupart discloses the layer thickness of the elastic sheet (elastically deformable compensation element) may be in the compressed state relative to its noncompressed state, along the longitudinal axis by at least 5%, preferably, by at least 15%, more preferably, by at least 20% and that the compression of the layer thickness of the elastic sheet relative to the layer thickness in the noncompressed state may be up to 70%, up to 60%, or up to 50% (para. 0024). Lupart further disclose that inventors recognized that within these parameters, a particularly reliable compensation of changes in volume during cycling of the battery is achieved, and is manifested in particularly high reliability and lifetime of the battery (para. 0024). Lupart further discloses the arrangement of an elastic sheet (elastically deformable compensation element) which is elastically deformable and substantially not inelastically deformed, is highly suitable for compensating, or at least greatly reducing, changes in volume in the solid-state cell stack and as a result, the risk of contact losses or of cracks in the solid electrolyte is reduced significantly (para. 0013). In this way, all-solid-state rechargeable battery having improved calendar and cycling lifetime are provided, which at the same time, as a result of the stacked construction, fulfill the high energy density and power density required for use in automobiles (para. 0013).
It would be obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the elastic sheet of Ohta in view of Terada to have the elastic properties including compression strain as taught by Lupart, because such modification would provide a battery with a reduced change in volume in the solid-state cell stack and as a result, the risk of contact losses or of cracks in the solid electrolyte is reduced significantly.
Regarding claim 19, Ohta fails to disclose the battery case is a prismatic can.
Lupart discloses a multiplicity of electrochemical solid-state cells stacked along a longitudinal axis in a housing (para. 0007) which is a hardcase and particularly suitable are housing configurations with stainless steel or aluminum (para. 0064) meeting the claim limitation of a can type battery case. Lupart further teaches a prismatic can by disclosing the battery as PHEV1 cell format with height×width×depth of 85 mm×173 mm×21 mm (para. 0032). Lupart further discloses such a secondary battery would in order to ensure easy adaptation to existing vehicle architectures (para. 0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the battery case of Ohta to be a prismatic can as taught by Lupart. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the all-solid state secondary battery of Ohta in order to ensure easy adaptation to existing vehicle architectures.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISWARYA MATHEW whose telephone number is (571)272-9515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, ALICIA CHEVALIER can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/I.M./
Iswarya MathewExaminer, Art Unit 1788
08/04/2026
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights