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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species A in the reply filed on 09/09/2026 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 Claims 5-8 are withdrawn as being drawn to non-elected species while claims 1-4 and 9-16 are examined herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 08/10/2023 and 10/27/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 9-16 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.
The term “close” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One skilled in the art would not be able to determine the distance required to meet the limitation of being “close” and therefore the claim is indefinite. Claims 2-4 and 9-16 are further rejected due to their dependence upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waseda (US 20190214684 A1, hereinafter referred to as Waseda1) in view of Waseda (US 20190280329 A1, hereinafter referred to as Waseda2).
Regarding claim 1, Waseda1 discloses a battery (all-solid-state batter [title]) comprising:
a battery element, the battery element including a first electrode, a solid electrolyte layer, and a second electrode (unit cells 6a, 6b, 6c, and 6c include positive “first” electrodes 1/2, solid electrolyte layers 3, and negative “second” electrodes 4/5 [Paras. 0047, 0074-0083; Figs. 1,4]);
a first insulating member (resin layer 11 [Paras. 0033, 0073; Figs. 1 and 4]); and
a void (a cavity 12 [Paras. 0032, 0036-0040; Figs. 1 and 4]); wherein
the battery element has a laminated structure in which the first electrode, the solid electrolyte layer, and the second electrode are disposed in this order (the unit cells are formed as a laminated body in the claimed order [Para. 0046-0047; Figs. 1 and 4]);
the first insulating member coats at least a portion of a side surface of the battery element (resin layer 11 coats at least a portion of the side surface of the unit cells [see Figs. 1 and 4]); and
the void includes a void positioned close to the side surface of the battery element (the cavity 12 is “close to” the side of the unit cells 6 [see Figs. 1 and 4]).
Waseda1 appears to teach only one insulating layer and thus fails to teach “a second insulating member” wherein “the second insulating member encloses the battery element, the first insulating member, and the void”.
Waseda2 teaches a laminated all-solid-state battery substantially similar to that disclosed by Waseda1 [abstract] wherein the insulating layer is formed of a multilayer resin structure. Waseda2 teaches that by covering the side surface of the all-solid-state battery laminate with a multi-layer resin structure, even if the volume of the all-solid-state battery laminate increases and decreases rapidly due to charging and discharging, the resin structure can absorb the stresses generated by the changes in volume and thus cracking of the resin layer can be prevented [Para. 0035]. Waseda2 further teaches wherein the entire all-solid-state battery including the sides and upper/lower surfaces of the battery can be covered by the multilayer resin layer (i.e., the second/outer resin layer would enclose the entire battery element and inner resin layer) [Para. 0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Waseda1 to further include a second insulating layer that encapsulates the battery element, resin layer, and cavity because Waseda2 teaches that such a multilayer resin structure allows for the absorption of stresses generated as the battery cell volume increases and decreases during charging and discharging and thus prevents the cracking of the resin layer [Para. 0035]. Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 2, Waseda1 further discloses a lead terminal connected to the first electrode or the second electrode (the positive and negative current collectors are electrically connected to tabs that extend from the resin layer [Para. 0021]).
Regarding claim 3, Waseda1 further discloses wherein the void includes a void positioned between the side surface of the battery element and the lead terminal (the tab extends outside of the resin layer and thus the void necessarily is present between the side surface of the battery and the lead terminal in view of the orientation shown in Figs. 1 and 4 (i.e., the middle units 6b/6c would have a tab extending from the current collectors to outside the resin layer 11 and thus the cavity would be positioned between the exterior tab and the side of the electrodes [Para. 0021]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Waseda1 further discloses wherein the void is a closed pore (Waseda1 [Para. 0035] and Waseda2 [0035,0044] both disclose wherein the cavity is present within the resin layer(s) and thus would be considered a “closed pore”).
Regarding claim 10, Waseda1 further discloses wherein the void is in contact with the first insulating member (cavity 12 is in contact with the resin layer 11 [Para. 0033; Figs. 1 and 4]).
Regarding claim 11, Waseda1 further discloses wherein the void is filed with a gas (Waseda1 teaches an all-solid-state battery and thus the cavity would necessarily be filled with gas rather than a liquid [abstract]).
Regarding claim 12-13, Waseda1 as modified by Waseda2 above further disclose wherein the first insulating member and the second insulating member each include epoxy resin, of instant claim 12, wherein each are formed of a different material, of instant claim 13 (Waseda1 and Waseda2 teach the resin layers being formed of epoxy resin and Waseda2 teach wherein the two resin layers can be selected to have different properties [Waseda1, Para. 0073; Waseda2, Paras. 0038-0041]).
Regarding claim 14, Waseda1 as modified by Waseda2 teaches the limitations of claim1 as outlined above.
Waseda1 as modified by Waseda2 fail to expressly state the hardness of the insulating members and thus fails to teach that the first insulating member is harder than the second insulating member, as required by claim 14.
However, Waseda2 teaches that the elastic modulus of the two resin layers may be modified with respect to each other and thus the difference between the elastic modulus of the two layers is not particularly limited [Para. 0039]. One skilled in the art would appreciate that elastic modulus (i.e., stiffness) and hardness are closely related and a material with a high elastic modulus typically has a higher hardness level. Given the teachings of Waseda2 wherein it is known to modify the two resin layers relative to each other, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected different resin materials with differing elastic modulus or hardness and such optimization would provide the obvious and predictable benefit of preventing cracking of the resin material [Waseda2 Para. 0035]. It has been held that even if a specific embodiment is not taught as preferred makes it no less obvious and that the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious, see Merck v. Biocraft, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed Cir 1985). Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(E).
Regarding claims 15-16, Waseda1 discloses the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Waseda1 further teaches wherein the all-solid-state battery is a laminate formed by laminating the electrodes and the resin layer [Waseda1 Paras. 0008-0011]. The examiner takes the position that the multilayer resin layer disclosed by Waseda2 meets the limitations of a “laminated film” or would otherwise be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as both Waseda1 and Waseda2 teach the battery as being an all-solid-state laminate battery [abstract].
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waseda1 and Waseda2, as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Omura et al. (US 20070014076 A1). Note: claim 3 is rejected over Waseda1 and Waseda2 above as being inherently present. For purposes of compact prosecution, claim 3 is further rejected below in view of Omura.
Regarding claims 3-4, modified Waseda1 discloses the limitations of claim 1/2 as outlined previously.
Waseda1 further discloses wherein the lead terminal is connected to a principal surface of the first electrode or a principal surface of the second electrode, of instant claim 4 (tabs are electrically connected to the positive and negative electrode current collectors and protruding from the resin layer [Para. 0021]).
Waseda1 does not provide any detailed information about the location, orientation, or shape of the tab. It follows that Waseda1 fails to expressly state wherein the void is “positioned between the side surface of the battery element and the lead terminal” of instant claim 3, and “the lead terminal has a crank-shaped bent portion, the bent portion being bent from the principal surface of the first electrode or the principal surface of the second electrode toward a direction along the side surface of the battery element and being bent to extend toward an outside of the second insulating member, and the void includes a void positioned between the side surface of the battery element and the bent portion”, of instant claim 4.
Omura discloses an electrolytic cell such as a nonaqueous electrolytic battery [Para. 0056] that includes an inner electrode assembly that is surrounded by a sealing resin [Para. 0035]. Omura teaches that the tabs that protrude from the resin layer can be bent into a two-stage step which includes a horizontal plate portion and a vertical plate portion [Para. 0047; Fig. 5]. Omura teaches that the bent structure provides increased length of the path by which the electrodes are covered by the resin material and thus prevents the intrusion of moisture from outside of the resin layer [Para. 0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Waseda1 such that the tabs run along the top of the current collectors and have a bend that is disposed within the first and/or second resin layers because Omura teaches that such structure prevents the intrusion of moisture from outside of the resin layer [Para. 0048]. Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results (MPEP 2143(A)). Examiner notes that a bend within the first and/or second resin layer of modified Waseda1 would necessarily result in the cavity 12 being positioned between the side surface of the battery and the lead terminal, of instant claim 3, and the void being positioned between the side surface of the battery element and the bent portion, of instant claim 4 [see Waseda Figs. 1/4 and Omura Fig. 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Munshi (US 6645675 B1) discloses a solid polymer battery cell where void spaces are created between the electrode surfaces and the current collector. Yamamoto et al. (US 20150280210 A1) disclose a laminated battery with an inner insulating portion and an outer laminate film separated by a void space.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3176. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-4:30pm ET Mon-Thurs, 7:30am-11:30pm Fri.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/JOSHUA L ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights