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 .
This is the initial Office action based on application number 18/588405 filed on 12/11/2025. Claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, directed to an inorganic solid electrolyte as recited in claim 5 and 6, in the reply filed on 12/11/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 7 and 8 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US 20150147659 A1) in view of Fujii et al. (JP 2020188026 A) and Nandi et al. (US 20140377628 A1). The English translation of JP 2020188026 A is used as reference as attached.
Regarding to claim 1: Kato discloses a hybrid electric vehicle and/or an electric vehicle comprising an all-solid-state battery (10) including a cathode layer (4), an anode layer (2), and an electrolyte layer (3) arranged between the cathode layer (4) and the anode layer (2) (abstract, par. 2, 4, 31, figure 1), wherein:
the electrolyte layer (3) including a first solid electrolyte layer (3a), and a second solid electrolyte layer (3b) (abstract, par. 31, figure 1).
Kato fails to explicitly disclose the first solid electrolyte layer contains a first nonwoven fabric, and a first solid electrolyte arranged inside the first nonwoven fabric; the second solid electrolyte layer contains a second nonwoven fabric, and a second solid electrolyte arranged inside the second nonwoven fabric. However, Fujii et al. disclose all-solid-state batteries (par. 3) which includes a separator (equivalent to the electrolyte layer (3) of Kato) comprising a substrate and crystalline oxide-based inorganic solid electrolyte particles. The substrate is being made of a nonwoven fabric with a porosity in the range of 0.1 to 99.9%. (par. 8, 14). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the separator including the nonwoven fabric and inorganic solid electrolyte particles of Fujii et al. in the first solid electrolyte layer (3a) and the second solid electrolyte layer (3b) of Kato because Fujii et al. teach that the nonwoven fabric separator can improve battery characteristics due to high ionic conductivity provided by a thin membrane, improve processability as a battery due to the flexibility of the separator, and prevent short circuits during battery production and operation (par. 9).
Kato and Fujii et al. fail to explicitly disclose that in a plan view along a thickness direction, an angle formed by a first fabric direction in the first nonwoven fabric and a second fabric direction in the second nonwoven fabric is 45° or more and 90° or less. However, Nandi et al. disclose battery separators including reinforcing fibers (abstract). The battery separator (500'') having a plurality of bi-directionally arranged fiber strands (504 and 514) (equivalent to the first and the second nonwoven fabric) (par. 63, figure 5C). The first and the second fiber strands (504 and 514) are uni-directionally arranged fiber strands, respectively (par. 58). The second fiber strands (514) are roughly perpendicular to the first fiber strands (504) (equivalent to 90° between the first fabric direction and the second fabric direction) (par. 63, figure 5C). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the orientation angle of 90° between the first and the second fiber strands of Nandi et al. as the orientation angle of the first solid electrolyte layer (3a) and the second solid electrolyte layer (3b) of Kato which are already incorporated with nonwoven fabrics of Fujii et al. because Nandi et al. teach that the strength of battery separator (500'') may increase due to two directions of the plurality of fiber strands are provided (par. 63). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding to claim 2: Kato in view of Fujii et al. discloses the all-solid-state battery including two electrolyte layers with nonwoven fabrics as described above. Kato and Fujii et al. fail to explicitly disclose that the angle is 80° or more and 90° or less. However, Nandi et al. disclose battery separators including reinforcing fibers (abstract). The battery separator (500'') having a plurality of bi-directionally arranged fiber strands (504 and 514) (equivalent to the first and the second nonwoven fabric) (par. 63, figure 5C). The first and the second fiber strands (504 and 514) are uni-directionally arranged fiber strands, respectively (par. 58). The second fiber strands (514) are roughly perpendicular to the first fiber strands 504 (equivalent to 90° between the first fabric direction and the second fabric direction) (par. 63, figure 5C). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the orientation angle of 90° between the first and the second fiber strands of Nandi et al. as the orientation angle of the first solid electrolyte layer (3a) and the second solid electrolyte layer (3b) of Kato which are already incorporated with nonwoven fabrics of Fujii et al. because Nandi et al. teach that the strength of battery separator (500'') may increase due to two directions of the plurality of fiber strands are provided (par. 63). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding to claim 3: Kato discloses the all-solid-state battery (10) including two electrolyte layers as described above. Kato fail to explicitly disclose that each of a void rate in the first nonwoven fabric and a void rate in the second nonwoven fabric is 70% or more and 90% or less. However, Fujii et al. disclose all-solid-state batteries (par. 3) which includes a separator (equivalent to the electrolyte layer (3) of Kato) comprising a substrate and crystalline oxide-based inorganic solid electrolyte particles. The substrate is being made of a nonwoven fabric with a porosity in the range of 0.1 to 99.9%. (par. 8, 14). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the separator including the nonwoven fabric with a porosity in the range of 0.1 to 99.9% and inorganic solid electrolyte particles of Fujii et al. in the first solid electrolyte layer (3a) and the second solid electrolyte layer (3b) of Kato because Fujii et al. teach that the nonwoven fabric separator can improve battery characteristics due to high ionic conductivity provided by a thin membrane, improve processability as a battery due to the flexibility of the separator, and prevent short circuits during battery production and operation (par. 9). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding to claim 4: Kato discloses the all-solid-state battery (10) including two electrolyte layers as described above. Kato fail to explicitly disclose in the first nonwoven fabric, a tensile strength of the first fabric direction is larger than a tensile strength of a direction orthogonal to the first fabric direction; and in the second nonwoven fabric, a tensile strength of the second fabric direction is larger than a tensile strength of a direction orthogonal to the second fabric direction.
It is well known in the art that a nonwoven fabric has a greater strength in the machine direction (equivalent to the fabric direction) as opposed the cross direction (equivalent to the direction orthogonal to the fabric direction). This is evidenced by Tausif et al. reference (Muhammad Tausif, Achilles Pliakas, Tom O'Haire, Parikshit Goswami and Stephen J. Russell, "Mechanical Properties of Nonwoven Reinforced Thermoplastic Polyurethane Composites", Materials 2017, 10(6), 618; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma10060618. (Year: 2017)) in which tensile strength in machine direction is greater than that in cross direction as shown in figures 3 and 5. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention’s features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999).
Regarding to claim 5: Kato discloses the all-solid-state battery (10) including two electrolyte layers as described above. Kato further discloses the first and the second solid electrolyte layers including sulfide solid electrolyte (equivalent to an inorganic solid electrolyte) (abstract, par. 32, 33).
Regarding to claim 6: Kato discloses the all-solid-state battery (10) including two electrolyte layers as described above. Kato further discloses the first and the second solid electrolyte layers including sulfide solid electrolyte (abstract, par. 32, 33).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 17/945,522. The two applications are not patentably distinct from each other because the only difference is a vehicle comprising an all solid state battery. Kato (US 20150147659 A1) discloses a electric vehicle comprising an all-solid-state battery (par. 4, 5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the all-solid-state battery in the vehicles because Kato teaches that a nonflammable solid electrolyte can make the system safe and simple (par. 5).
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PIN JAN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/PIN JAN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717