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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed July 8th, 2026 has been entered. Claim 4 has been withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claims 1-3 & 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (US 2022/0271293 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamada teaches a binder solution for an all-solid-state battery (Par. 0012), the binder solution comprising: a binder made of a vinylidene fluoride polymer (Par. 0015); and an organic solvent (Par. 0019-0022; the solvent is an aromatic or an ester, both organic compounds), wherein the organic solvent is an ester (Par. 0022), the organic solvent has a boiling point of 60°C or higher and 160°C or lower (Par. 0177; ethyl butyrate is a potential solvent, and Table 1 of the present application lists the boiling point of ethyl butyrate as 120°C), a residual moisture content of the organic solvent is 300 ppm or less (Par. 0180; water content of 500 ppm or less and 100 ppm or less), the vinylidene fluoride polymer is a copolymer including a structural unit derived from vinylidene fluoride and a structural unit derived from hexafluoropropylene (Par. 0016, “HFP”), and a content of the structural unit derived from hexafluoropropylene is 15 mass% or more and 35 mass% or less with respect to all structural units of the copolymer (Par. 0131; a mol% of HFP of 15-55% in the VDF-HFP copolymer corresponds to a mass% of 29.2-74.2%, which overlaps the claimed range). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 2, Yamada teaches the binder solution for an all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the organic solvent has a boiling point of 80°C or higher and 160°C or lower (Par. 0177; ethyl butyrate is a potential solvent, and Table 1 of the present application lists the boiling point of ethyl butyrate as 120°C).
Regarding claim 3, Yamada teaches the binder solution for an all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the organic solvent is ethyl butyrate (Par. 0177).
Regarding claim 5, Yamada teaches a slurry (Par. 0011) comprising: the binder solution described in claim 1 (Par. 0012; “a binder used in a slurry”); and a solid electrolyte (Par. 0012; “solid-based electrolyte particles”).
Regarding claim 6, Yamada teaches a solid electrolyte layer produced from the slurry described in claim 5, wherein the solid electrolyte layer has an ionic conductivity of 0.05 x 10-3 S/cm or more (Par. 0277; the solid electrolyte sheet has a conductivity of 4x10^-4 S/cm).
Regarding claim 7, Yamada teaches an electrode mixture comprising: the slurry described in claim 5; and an active material (Claims 11 & 13; an electrode comprises the slurry which further contains active material particles).
Regarding claim 8, Yamada teaches an electrode comprising the solid-state electrolyte layer described in claim 6 (Claims 8 & 13; an electrode contains the slurry which contains the solid electrolyte layer).
Regarding claim 9, Yamada teaches an all-solid-state battery comprising the solid electrolyte layer described in claim 6 (Claims 13 & 17; a lithium-ion solid-state battery comprises the electrode which contains the solid electrolyte layer, as stated above).
Regarding claim 10, Yamada teaches the binder solution for an all-solid-state battery according to claim 2, wherein the organic solvent is ethyl butyrate (Par. 0177).
Regarding claim 11, Yamada teaches the binder solution for an all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein a content of the structural unit derived from vinylidene fluoride is 65 mass% or more and 85 mass% or less with respect to all structural units of the copolymer (Par. 0131; a mol% of VDF of 45-85% in the VDF-HFP copolymer corresponds to a mass% of 25.9-70.7%, which overlaps the claimed range). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed July 8th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) in over Yamada et al. (US 2022/0271293 A1) have been fully considered. Applicant’s amendments, by narrowing the recited range, overcome the 102 rejection.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the claimed invention is neither anticipated by nor obvious over Yamada, because Yamada only teaches a small overlap between the claimed mass% range of 15-35% and that of Yamada, and that it would not have been obvious to select the overlapping portion of the ranges. However, MPEP 2144.05(I) states that any overlap between a claimed range and a range disclosed by the prior art supports a prima facie case of obviousness. As Yamada teaches a mass% range of 29.2-74.2, mass% values between 29.2 and 35 meet the claimed limitations, and it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the overlapping portion of the claimed range, regardless of the size of the non-overlapping portion of the range.
Applicant also provided an Affidavit including a table (Table A), which shows the dissolution states of the binder in mass% ratios outside of the claimed range, which result in turbidity and precipitation. The affidavit and corresponding arguments are unpersuasive, because they are not commensurate in scope with the claims. In Comparative Experimental Examples 1-2 and Example 2, dioxane is used as an organic solvent. Thus, the data shown is silent regarding the solvent used and the full scope of amended claim 1. As stated above, Yamada teaches ethyl butyrate as an organic solvent, and does not mention dioxane as a possible solvent. As the selection of a solvent could alter the binder’s dissolution at different mass% ratios. As such, the scope of table A and the corresponding do not show criticality or unexpectedness for scope of amended claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments, filed July 8th, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Senga et al. (KR 20080041627 A), in view of Isojima et al. (US 2022/0344710 A1), and further in view of Makino et al. (US 11489163 B2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-11 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON M BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)272-9742. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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 (571) 270-7871. 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.
/CAMERON M BAIRD/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights