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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 27 May, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hori et al. (JP 2019139921, as read via machine translation).
As to claim 1, Hori et al. discloses a battery comprising: at least one battery cell (see e.g. all-solid battery, [0012] and Fig. 2),
wherein the at least one battery cell includes a positive electrode layer (see e.g. positive electrode, Hori et al.: [0012]), a negative electrode layer (see e.g. negative electrode, [0012]), and a solid electrolyte layer disposed between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer (see e.g. solid electrolyte layer, which is interposed between positive and negative electrode layers, [0012] and [0023]), and
in a plan view of a side surface of the at least one battery cell, the side surface of the at least one battery cell is provided with striated recesses or striated protrusions that are inclined with respect to a thickness direction of the at least one battery cell (see e.g. paras [0026]-[0027] and Fig. 2, the battery laminate is cut with a cutting tool that moves along the z-axis as shown in Fig. 2. While Hori et al. does not explicitly describe striated recesses, some striated recesses must necessarily be present because no cutting tool is perfectly smooth and any cutting tool will leave striations on the cut interface. As such, striated recesses and protrusions are present at a 90 degree inclination with respect to the thickness direction of the battery cell in Hori et al.’s battery cell).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori et al. (JP 2019139921) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Warren et al. (US 6,132,477).
As to claim 2, Hori et al. discloses the battery according to claim 1, wherein in a plan view of the side surface of the at least one battery cell, a 90 degree angle is formed between the striated recess or the striated protrusion and the thickness direction (see the rejection of claim 1 above). However, this 90 degree angle lies outside the instantly-claimed range of at least 18 degrees and at most 84 degrees.
Warren et al., also working on the problem of cutting battery cells, teaches a method of cutting a battery cell wherein, in a plan view of the side surface of the battery cell, the cell is cut at an angle of 35 to 50 degrees, which lies within and thereby anticipates the instantly-claimed range of 18 to 84 degrees (see e.g. Warren et al., col. 6, lines 4-13, Fig. 3, and see Illustration 1 below. The side surface is in the plane of the page and the angle is indicated as q).
PNG
media_image1.png
293
769
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Illustration 1: Reproduction with annotation of Fig. 3 of Warren et al..
Warren et al. teaches that when battery cells are cut at this angle, the tendency toward lithium ion bypass and metallic plating are avoided by the greater intra-electrode edge spacing established by the separator layer (see e.g. Warren et al.: col. 2, lines 35-54).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Hori et al. by changing the cutting angle from 90 degrees to a value in the range of 18 to 84 degrees as taught by Warren et al., resulting in striations that are inclined at an angle formed between the striated recess or the striated protrusion and the thickness direction of at least 18 degrees and at most 84 degrees. Said artisan would have been motivated to modify Hori et al.’s battery in this manner because Warren et al. teaches that the tendency toward lithium ion bypass and metallic plating are avoided by the greater intra-electrode edge spacing established by the separator layer when the battery cell is cut in this manner.
As to claim 3, Hori et al. discloses the battery according to claim 1, wherein in a plan view of the side surface of the at least one battery cell, a 90 degree angle is formed between the striated recess or the striated protrusion and the thickness direction (see the rejection of claim 1 above). However, this 90 degree angle lies outside the instantly-claimed range of at least 18 degrees and at most 84 degrees.
Warren et al., also working on the problem of cutting battery cells, teaches a method of cutting a battery cell wherein, in a plan view of the side surface of the battery cell, the cell is cut at an angle of 35 to 50 degrees, which lies within and thereby anticipates the instantly-claimed range of 25 to 78 degrees (see e.g. Warren et al., col. 6, lines 4-13, Fig. 3, and see Illustration 1 below. The side surface is in the plane of the page and the angle is indicated as q).
PNG
media_image1.png
293
769
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Illustration 1: Reproduction with annotation of Fig. 3 of Warren et al..
Warren et al. teaches that when battery cells are cut at this angle, the tendency toward lithium ion bypass and metallic plating are avoided by the greater intra-electrode edge spacing established by the separator layer (see e.g. Warren et al.: col. 2, lines 35-54).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Hori et al. by changing the cutting angle from 90 degrees to a value in the range of 25 to 78 degrees as taught by Warren et al., resulting in striations that are inclined at an angle formed between the striated recess or the striated protrusion and the thickness direction of at least 25 degrees and at most 78 degrees. Said artisan would have been motivated to modify Hori et al.’s battery in this manner because Warren et al. teaches that the tendency toward lithium ion bypass and metallic plating are avoided by the greater intra-electrode edge spacing established by the separator layer when the battery cell is cut in this manner.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori et al. (JP 2019139921) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of NEC Corp. (JP 4-167579, as read via machine translation provided with the IDS dated 7 Nov, 2023).
As to claim 4, Hori et al. discloses the battery according to claim 1, wherein in a plan view of the side surface of the at least one battery cell, the battery is cut with a tool traveling in a straight line (see e.g. Hori et al.: Fig. 2), necessarily resulting in striated recesses or striated protrusions that are straight, rather than curved.
However, NEC Corp., also working on the problem of cutting battery cells, teaches battery cells that are cut with a rotary cutting blade (see e.g. rotary cutting blade 21, NEC Corp.: pg. 4, para. 2 and Fig. 2), which necessarily produces striated recesses or striated protrusions that are curved, as the rotary cutting blade travels in a curved path relative to the side surface and the rotary cutting blade is not a perfectly smooth cutting surface.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Hori et al. by using the rotary cutting blade taught by NEC Corp., resulting in resulting in striated recesses or striated protrusions that are curved. This is because NEC Corp. teaches that the use of a rotary blade is a functionally equivalent cutting process to the linear cutting blade taught by Hori et al..
Claim(s) 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori et al. (JP 2019139921).
As to claim 5, Hori et al. discloses the battery according to claim 1. Hori et al. does not explicitly disclose the depth of the striated recesses or the height of the striated protrusions, and does not explicitly disclose that a depth of the striated recesses or a height of the striated protrusions is 0.1 mm or more.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention that conventional mechanical cutting with a cutting tool such as the one used in Hori et al. inherently produces a surface having measurable topographical variation resulting from imperfections in the geometry of the cutting edge, tool movement, and material deformation during cutting. Such striated recesses or protrusions would have been reasonably expected to possess a finite depth or height, including dimensions of at least 0.1µm or more. Therefore, selecting a minimum depth or height of 0.1µm merely reflects the expected dimensions of the surface features produced by ordinary cutting and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 6, Hori et al. discloses the battery according to claim 1, but only discloses a single battery cell (see e.g. Fig. 2) and Hori et al. does not explicitly disclose a battery cell that comprises a plurality of battery cells and the plurality of battery cells are stacked.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to stack a plurality of cells atop one another during the cutting process, in order to increase the throughput of the cutting process. Further, modifying the battery of Hori et al. such that the battery cell comprises a plurality of stacked cells would fail to produce any new benefit that would not have been reasonably expected by one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention.
As to claim 7, Hori et al. teaches the battery according to claim 6, wherein striated recesses or striated protrusions in adjacent battery cells among the plurality of battery cells are continuous (see e.g. Hori et al.: Fig. 2, the cutting process is performed in one continuous motion, and as such the striated recesses or striated protrusions in adjacent battery cells among the plurality of battery cells are necessarily continuous).
As to claim 8, Hori et al. teaches the battery according to claim 6, but does not explicitly teach that wherein in a plan view of side surfaces of adjacent battery cells among the plurality of battery cells, a direction of inclination of the striated recesses or the striated protrusions in one of the adjacent battery cells is opposite a direction of inclination of the striated recesses or the striated protrusions in an other of the adjacent battery cells with respect to the thickness direction.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to assemble and stack the battery cells of Hori et al. such that adjacent battery cells are oriented in opposite directions. This is because a battery cell is capable of being rotated or flipped prior to stacking, and selecting one orientation versus the opposite orientation represents one of finite number of predictable assembly configurations. Such selection would have been an obvious matter of design choice depending on desired manufacturing assembly, tab arrangement, packaging, or other design considerations, while yielding predictable result of an assembled battery comprising adjacent cells having opposite directions of inclination of the striated recesses or protrusions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wen et al. (CN 110394835A, as read via machine translation) teaches a related cutting process for a battery cell (see e.g. Wen: Figs. 2-5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT HILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)-272-3066. 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.
/A.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
07/03/2026
Prosecution Insights