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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received November 7, 2025:
Claims 1-6 are pending. Claim 7 has been cancelled as per applicant’s request.
The core of the previous rejection is maintained with slight changes made in light of the amendment in view of Honda et al. (US 2018/0166672). All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aihara et al. (US 2015/0093652) in view of Yoshida (US 2015/0353780), Honda et al. (US 2018/0166672) and Oku et al. (US 2015/0318555).
5. Regarding Claim 1, Aihara et al. teaches a solid state battery (i.e. an all solid state battery) (Para. [0013]) wherein the negative electrode includes a negative electrode active material allowing reversible intercalation and deintercalation of lithium ions (Para. [0104]) (i.e. wherein the all solid state battery utilizes a deposition and dissolution reaction of metal Li as an anode reaction), wherein the solid state battery comprises (i.e. the all solid state battery comprises) a negative electrode and its current collector (i.e. an anode current collector), an adhesive layer disposed between the negative electrode layer and its current collector comprising binder resin (Para. [0112]) (i.e. a layer comprising a resin in direct contact with the anode current collector), a solid electrolyte layer interposed between a positive electrode layer and a negative electrode layer (i.e. a solid electrolyte layer) (Para. [0035]) wherein the electrolyte is a sulfide solid electrolyte (i.e. the solid electrolyte includes a sulfide electrolyte material) (Para. [0013]), the positive electrode includes positive electrode active material (Para. [0099]) (i.e. a cathode active material layer), and an adhesive layer disposed between the positive electrode layer and its current collector (i.e. a cathode current collector, in this order) (Para. [0112]) and the negative active material may be a Li metal sheet (Para. [0109]).
Aihara et al. does not teach the adhesive layer is porous, a thickness of the adhesive layer, nor the resin is a fluorine-based resin and a content of the resin in the porous layer is 25 weight% or more.
However, Yoshida teaches an electroconductive adhesive composition for an electrochemical device electrode (Para. [0011]) applied on a current collector (Para. [0044]) and an electrode active material applied on the electroconductive adhesive layer (Para. [0051]) wherein the electrode active material may be a negative electrode active material (Para. [0053]) (i.e. between a current collector and an active material layer) and the electroconductive adhesive composition comprises polyvinylidene fluoride (i.e. a layer comprising a fluorine-based resin) (Para. [0030]) and the thickness of the electroconductive adhesive layer is 0.5 to 3 micrometers (Para. [0048]) (i.e. a thickness of the porous layer is 4 micrometers or less).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adhesive layer of Aihara et al. to incorporate the teaching of PVDF and the thickness of 0.5 to 3 micrometers as taught by Yoshida, as such an adhesive layer would provide good adhesion with an electrode active material layer [such as metal lithium, see para. [0057] and an electrode having low resistance (Para. [0048]).
Aihara et al. does not teach the adhesive layer is porous and a void of the porous layer is more than 60% and 74.4% or less.
However, Honda et al. teaches an adhesive porous layer comprising an adhesive resin (Para. [0043]) wherein the adhesive resin is polyvinylidene fluoride resin (Para. [0228], [0229]) (i.e. the resin is PVDF) wherein the porosity is from 30% to 70% (Para. [0249]), overlapping with the claimed range of more than 60% and 74.4% or less.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adhesive layer of Aihara et al. to incorporate the teaching of the porosity as taught by Honda et al., as such a porosity provides a layer with mechanical strength which the adhesive layer can withstand applied pressure or heat during manufacture, and favorable adherence to an electrode (Para. [0249]), with a reasonable expectation of success achieving a function of an adhesive layer. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Aihara et al. does not teach a content of the resin in the porous layer is 25 weight% or more.
However, Oku et al. teaches a resin layer (Para. [0262]) for a battery comprising known adhesive polymer resin wherein a blending ratio of electrically conductive particles based on 100 parts by weight of the adhesive resin is preferably 0 to 100 parts by weight (i.e. a content of the adhesive resin polymer overlapping with a range of 25 weight% or more e.g. if the electrically conductive particles is 0 parts by weight and thus, the adhesive resin would be 100 weight%) (Para. [0266]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified adhesive layer of Aihara et al. to incorporate the teaching of wherein a blending ratio of electrically conductive particles based on 100 parts by weight of the resin is preferably 0 to 100 parts by weight, such as 100 weight% as taught by Oku et al., as such a ratio would secure strength of the resin layer and provide easy handling (Para. [0266]). 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding the electric resistance of the porous layer, modified Aihara et al. teaches a porous layer comprising a resin containing a fluorine-based resin wherein a content of the resin in the porous layer is 25 weight% or more as explained above (i.e. the same composition and the same content). Accordingly, the porous layer of modified Aihara et al. would either (a) be expected to satisfy an electric resistance of 1 ohm or more and 690 ohms or less, or (b) differences in the electric resistance set forth in the instant claim, having an electric resistance of 1 ohm or more and 690 ohms or less would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious. With respect to (a): The reasons regarding expectedness are that the composition is identical to that of the instant claim, therefore it is expected that the porous layer of modified Aihara et al. would satisfy these conditions. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01. With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the electric resistance) would be small and obvious. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 2, Aihara et al. as modified by Yoshida, Honda et al. and Oku et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Aihara et al. does not teach the adhesive layer is porous or a fluorine-based resin is polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF).
However, Yoshida teaches an electroconductive adhesive composition for an electrochemical device electrode (Para. [0011]) applied on a current collector (Para. [0044]) and an electrode active material applied on the electroconductive adhesive layer (Para. [0051]) wherein the electrode active material may be a negative electrode active material (Para. [0053]) (i.e. between a current collector and an active material layer) and the electroconductive adhesive composition comprises polyvinylidene fluoride (i.e. wherein the fluorine-based resin is polyvinylidene fluoride) (Para. [0030]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adhesive layer of Aihara et al. to incorporate the teaching of PVDF as taught by Yoshida, as such an adhesive layer would provide good adhesion with an electrode active material layer [such as metal lithium, see para. 0057] and an electrode having low resistance (Para. [0048]).
Regarding Claim 3, Aihara et al. as modified by Yoshida, Honda et al. and Oku et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Regarding the electric resistance of the porous layer, modified Aihara et al. teaches a porous layer comprising a resin containing a fluorine-based resin wherein a content of the resin in the porous layer is 25 weight% or more as explained above (i.e. the same composition and the same content). Accordingly, the porous layer of modified Aihara et al. would either (a) be expected to satisfy an electric resistance of 153 ohms or less, or (b) differences in the electric resistance set forth in the instant claim, having an electric resistance of 153 ohms or less would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious. With respect to (a): The reasons regarding expectedness are that the composition is identical to that of the instant claim, therefore it is expected that the porous layer of modified Aihara et al. would satisfy these conditions. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01. With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the electric resistance) would be small and obvious. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 4, Aihara et al. as modified by Yoshida, Honda et al. and Oku et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Aihara et al. further teaches the adhesive layer (i.e. the porous layer of modified Aihara) may include a conductive material (Para. [0112]) (i.e. contains an electron conductive material).
Regarding Claim 5, Aihara et al. as modified by Yoshida, Honda et al. and Oku et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Aihara et al. does not teach the adhesive layer (i.e. porous layer) contains just the resin.
However, Oku et al. teaches an adhesive resin for a battery comprising known adhesive polymer wherein a blending ratio of electrically conductive particles based on 100 parts by weight of the adhesive resin is preferably 0 to 100 parts by weight (i.e. may be 0, or the layer may contain just the resin) (Para. [0266]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adhesive layer (i.e. porous layer) of modified Aihara et al. to incorporate the teaching of the resin layer including just the resin as taught by Oku et al., as it would secure strength of the resin layer and provide easy handling (Para. [0266]).
Regarding Claim 6, Aihara et al. as modified by Yoshida, Honda et al. and Oku et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Aihara et al. further teaches the negative electrode and its current collector (i.e. an anode current collector), an adhesive layer (i.e. the porous layer of modified Aihara) disposed between the negative electrode layer and its current collector comprising binder resin (Para. [0112]) , the negative active material may be a Li metal sheet (i.e. an Li layer) (Para. [0109]) and a solid electrolyte layer interposed between a positive electrode layer and a negative electrode layer (i.e. a solid electrolyte layer) (Para. [0035]) (i.e. an Li layer present between the porous layer and the solid electrolyte layer of modified Aihara et al.).
Regarding the limitation “deposition Li”, deposition is describing the lithium by the manner in which it is produced. Product by process limitations do not impart structural features to the claim and thus as long as the structure is the same as that claimed, the claimed structure is met.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(citations omitted).
“The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature” than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See MPEP section 2113.
As the structure of modified Aihara et al. teaches lithium (i.e. the lithium metal negative electrode layer) present between the adhesive layer (i.e. porous layer in modified Aihara et al.) and the solid electrolyte layer, the limitation (of deposition Li is present between the porous layer and the solid electrolyte) is met.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed November 7, 2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of the references being used in the current rejection in light of the amendment.
Applicant’s arguments are drawn to a previous prior art combination and thus, are not persuasive in light of the newly cited prior art.
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 ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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 Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729