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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noda et al. (WO 2020/175488 A1, hereinafter Noda, cited by applicant, see US 2022/0140351 A1 for English translation).
Re Claim 1. Noda teaches an all-solid-state battery (para. 72) having a positive electrode layer (Fig. 1, item 12 & Fig. 6, item 51), a separator layer (item 11) and a negative electrode layer (Fig. 1, item 13 & item 52),
wherein the separator layer is disposed between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer (Fig. 1 & 5), and
wherein the all-solid-state battery satisfies relationships of Formulae (1) to (3):
Sa0/Sc0 =1 (1) (Fig. 1 & 5)
Sa1/Sa0 =1 (2) (Fig. 1 & 5, para. 38)
Sc1/Sc0 =1 (3) (Fig. 1 & 5, para. 36)
in Formulae (1) to (3),
Sc0 indicates an area of the positive electrode layer when the SOC is 0%,
Sc1 indicates an area of the positive electrode layer when the SOC is 100%,
Sa0 indicates an area of the negative electrode layer when the SOC is 0%, and
Sa1 indicates an area of the negative electrode layer when the SOC is 100%.
Re Claim 2. Noda teaches satisfying the relationship of Formula (3)’: Sc1/Sc0=1 (3)’ (Fig. 1 & 5, para. 36).
Re Claim 4. Noda teaches wherein the positive electrode layer contains at least one selected from the group consisting of a lithium-nickel-cobalt-manganese composite oxide (para. 37).
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.
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(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Furuta et al. (JP 2020-107389 A, hereinafter Furuta, cited by applicant).
The teachings of Noda have been discussed above.
Noda fails to specifically teach that the negative electrode layer contains at least one selected from the group consisting of a lithium titanium composite oxide, a titanium niobium composite oxide, graphite and hard carbon.
The invention of Furuta encompasses all solid battery. Furuta teaches that the negative electrode layer contains graphite and hard carbon (para. 82-86).
In view of Furuta, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Noda to employ graphite and hard carbon in the negative electrode layer, since using a well-known negative electrode material is within purview of one skill in the art.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda in view of Furuta.
Re Claim 5. Noda teaches an all-solid-state battery (para. 72) having a positive electrode layer (Fig. 1, item 12 & Fig. 6, item 51), a separator layer (item 11) and a negative electrode layer (Fig. 1, item 13 & item 52),
wherein the positive electrode layer contains at least one selected from the group consisting of a lithium-nickel-cobalt-manganese composite oxide (para. 37),
wherein the separator layer is disposed between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer (Fig. 1 & 5), and
wherein the all-solid-state battery satisfies relationships of Formulae (1) to (3):
Sa0/Sc0 =1 (1) (Fig. 1 & 5)
Sa1/Sa0 =1 (2) (Fig. 1 & 5, para. 38)
Sc1/Sc0 =1 (3) (Fig. 1 & 5, para. 36)
in Formulae (1) to (3),
Sc0 indicates an area of the positive electrode layer when the SOC is 0%,
Sc1 indicates an area of the positive electrode layer when the SOC is 100%,
Sa0 indicates an area of the negative electrode layer when the SOC is 0%, and
Sa1 indicates an area of the negative electrode layer when the SOC is 100%.
Noda fails to specifically teach that the negative electrode layer contains at least one selected from the group consisting of a lithium titanium composite oxide, a titanium niobium composite oxide, graphite and hard carbon.
The invention of Furuta encompasses all solid battery. Furuta teaches that the negative electrode layer contains graphite and hard carbon (para. 82-86).
In view of Furuta, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Noda to employ graphite and hard carbon in the negative electrode layer, since using a well-known negative electrode material is within purview of one skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
5/17/2026
Prosecution Insights