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 .
BATTERY AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING BATTERY
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/518,949 Art Unit: 1727 September 23, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
The Application filed on November 24, 2023 have been received. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. (US 2020/0112063 A1; as found in IDS dated 06/13/2025) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2022/0140402 A1).
As to Claims 1 and 12, Harada discloses a lithium-ion battery, comprising: a power generation element comprising laminated battery cells, each cell having: an electrode layer 11; a counter electrode layer 13; and a solid electrolyte layer 12 provided therebetween (Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0044 and 0064]). The power generation element comprises a first pair of side surfaces 40 facing each other; and a second pair of side surfaces 20,30 facing each other and different from the first pair of side surfaces (Fig. 5 and paragraph [0064]). Harada does not specifically disclose the claimed recessed solid electrolyte layer or the claimed surface roughness relationship of the side surfaces.
However, Tanaka teaches of a solid-sate battery, comprising: a recessed solid electrolyte layer 13 recessed from the electrodes on each of the first pair of side surfaces (Abstract, Fig. 3a and paragraph [0090]). In addition, Tanaka teaches wherein the surface roughness of the first side surface can be 12 microns and wherein the surface roughness of the second side surface can be 1 micron, which reads on the claimed relationship. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of Harada to have the claimed recessed solid electrolyte layer and claimed surface roughness relationship because Tanaka teaches that a battery in which volume expansion and contraction can be sufficiently suppressed and excellent cycle characteristics can be obtained (paragraph [0195]).
As to Claims 2 and 6, Tanaka teaches of a first terminal electrode 21 and a second terminal electrode 22 that is one of the second pair of side surfaces that covers the counter electrode layer and is electrically connected to the counter electrode layer on a first side surface (Fig. 1B). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of Harada to have the claimed first terminal electrode because Tanaka teaches that a battery in which volume expansion and contraction can be sufficiently suppressed and excellent cycle characteristics can be obtained (paragraph [0195]).
As to Claims 3, 5 and 8, Harada discloses wherein a first insulating member 40 covers the electrode layers and the solid electrolyte layer on a first side surface and a second insulating member 40 covering a third side surface being one of the first pair of side surfaces (Fig. 5).
As to Claim 4, modified Harada discloses wherein the first terminal electrode 21 (of Tanaka) covers the first insulating member of Harada (Fig. 5 of Harada and Fig. 1B of Tanaka).
As to Claim 7, Harada teaches wherein the first pair of side surfaces are not provided with terminal electrodes (Fig. 5).
As to Claim 9, the second insulating member 40 of modified Harada intrinsically enters the recess taught by Tanaka given that the structure and materials of the prior art and the claimed invention are the same and in order to not have any wasted space for maximizing energy density of the battery, see MPEP 2112.
As to Claim 10, the courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A. Furthermore, the courts have held that the claimed configuration of the battery is a matter of choice which a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the claimed configuration was significant, see MPEP 2144.04, IV, B. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the battery of modified Harada to comprise the claimed shape because Harada teaches that a solid-state battery with high capacity can be obtained (paragraph [0065]).
As to Claim 11, the courts have held that the claimed configuration of the battery is a matter of choice which a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the claimed configuration was significant, see MPEP 2144.04, IV, B. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the battery of modified Harada to comprise the claimed shape because Tanaka teaches that a battery in which volume expansion and contraction can be sufficiently suppressed and excellent cycle characteristics can be obtained (paragraph [0195]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior arts of record, Harada and Tanaka, do not specifically disclose, teach, or fairly suggest the claimed method of making a battery, comprising: forming second laminated bodies by cutting at least one first laminated body including an electrode layer, a counter electrode layer, and a solid electrolyte layer located between the electrode layer and the counter electrode layer, in which a first pair of cut surfaces facing each other are provided to each of the second laminated bodies by cutting 2 the at least one first laminated body in such a way as to cut the electrode layer, the counter electrode layer, and the solid electrolyte layer collectively; forming a third laminated body by laminating the second laminated bodies such that the respective first pairs of cut surfaces of the second laminated bodies face in same directions; and forming a fourth laminated body by cutting the third laminated body, in which a second pair of cut surfaces facing each other and extending in a direction intersecting the first pair of cut surfaces are provided to the fourth laminated body by cutting the third laminated body in such a way as to cut the second laminated bodies collectively (claim 13).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights