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 .
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 3 is 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 3 recites the limitation "the solid-state electrolyte layer." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the positive electrode insulating frame side." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kodama (US 2018/0205119).
Regarding Claim 1, Kodama teaches an all-solid-state battery (“solid-state battery”) (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 2B, Kodama teaches that the battery comprises an electrode laminate comprising an anode current collector (3b) (“negative electrode current collector”), an anode active material layer (3a), a solid electrolyte layer (2) (“solid electrolyte layer”), a cathode active material layer (1a) (“positive electrode material mixture layer”), and a cathode current collector (1b) (“positive electrode current collector”), wherein said layers are sequentially laminated ([0022]-[0031]). Kodama teaches that the anode active material layer is formed of a known active material such as lithium metal, or otherwise comprises 99 mass% or more of said lithium metal (i.e. the anode active material layer is interpreted as a “lithium metal layer”) ([0028]). As illustrated in Figures 5B-6A (and the annotated Figures 5B-5C below), Kodama teaches that a resin (7) (“resin or resin composition”) is disposed on outer periphery portions of the anode current collector, the anode active material layer, and the solid electrolyte layer, wherein a “space” formed at least in part between the anode active material layer and the solid electrolyte layer is filled with the resin ([0037]-[0044]).
As previously described, Kodama teaches the structural limitations of the instantly claimed battery, including the presence of the space formed at least in part between the anode active material layer and the solid electrolyte layer which is filled with the resin. Furthermore, the instant claim is to a product and as such the method limitations (i.e. a space formed between the lithium metal layer and the solid electrolyte layer formed by chemical conversion of the electrode laminate is filled with the resin or resin composition) of the instant claim do not patentably impact the product unless a material difference imparted by the process can be showed. “[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 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
PNG
media_image1.png
585
812
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
646
825
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Kodama teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figures 5B-6A (and the annotated Figure 5C below), the resin, as a whole, forms an insulating frame (“positive electrode insulating frame”) that is disposed on outer periphery portions of the cathode active material layer and the cathode current collector, wherein the other surface of the solid electrolyte layer faces the cathode active material layer and at least a portion of the insulating frame (it is noted that the instant claim does not require, for example, that the positive electrode insulating frame is disposed only on outer periphery portions of the positive electrode material mixture material layer and the positive electrode current collector).
PNG
media_image3.png
470
695
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Kodama teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figures 2B, 5B, 6A, the battery comprises a plurality of the laminates stacked, wherein in the laminate, the cathode active material layer, the solid electrolyte layer, the anode active material layer and the anode current collector are sequentially laminated on both surfaces of the cathode current collector.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodama (US 2018/0205119), and further in view of Tanaka (US 2013/0323568).
Regarding Claim 3, Kodama teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 2, as previously described.
Kodama does not explicitly teach that the solid electrolyte layer has an incline portion that inclines toward the insulating frame and is formed in at least a part of a region facing the insulating frame.
However, Tanaka teaches a solid battery (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 1, Tanaka teaches that the battery comprises a solid electrolyte layer (4) which is framed on each end thereof with insulating layers (2, 6) ([0028]). As illustrated in Figure 1, the solid electrolyte layer has an incline portion that inclines toward the insulating layers and is formed in at least a part of a region facing the insulating layers ([0028], [0032]-[0033]). Tanaka teaches that the incline portion helps further prevent the occurrence of short circuits ([0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, at least, form the solid electrolyte layer of Kodama such that it has an incline portion that inclines toward the insulating frame and is formed in at least a part of a region facing the insulating frame, as taught by Tanaka, given that such an incline portion would help further prevent the occurrence of short circuits in the battery.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent Claim 5 requires a method comprising (1) disposing the resin or resin composition as claimed on outer periphery portions of the negative electrode current collector, lithium metal layer, and solid electrolyte layer as claimed, (2) performing chemical conversion of the laminate, and (3) filling a space formed between the lithium metal layer and the solid electrolyte layer with the resin or resin composition. In particular, Claim 5 recites that in said (3), the space is formed by the chemical conversion of the laminate.
The closest prior art references of record relevant to at least Claim 5 are Kodama and Tanaka.
As previously described (See the rejection of Claim 1 above), Kodama discloses an all-solid-state battery. As illustrated in Figures 5A-6A, Kodama discloses that after forming the electrode laminate structure, the laminate structure is subjected to charging (i.e. a chemical conversion is carried out) followed by the disposition, impregnation, and curing of the resin on the outer periphery of the laminate (as outlined, in detail, in [0033]-[0044] of Kodama).
Therefore, while Kodama discloses a chemical conversion of the electrode laminate as well as the provision/curing of the resin, Kodama neither teaches nor suggests that the method comprises disposing the resin, performing chemical conversion as claimed so as to form the claimed space, and filling said space with the disposed resin. Furthermore, Tanaka does not cure the deficiencies of Kodama.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights