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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3, 5, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the first regions". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the recesses". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the second regions". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the first regions". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-3, 5, 7-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayashi et al. (US 2013/0149593A1.
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi discloses a battery (see Title, Abstract, Fig. 1-7) comprising:
a power-generating element having a structure in which a plurality of power-generating layers and a plurality of current collectors are laminated (layered solid battery including stacked unit cells [0039]), wherein
each of the plurality of power-generating layers includes
an electrode layer,
a counter electrode layer, and
a solid electrolyte layer located between the electrode layer and the counter electrode layer (positive electrode layer 1, a solid electrolyte layer 3, and a negative electrode layer 2 [0039]),
the plurality of current collectors each include
a counter electrode current collector that is electrically connected to the counter electrode layer, and
an electrode current collector that is electrically connected to the electrode layer (external electrode 5a,5b [0063]),
the plurality of power-generating layers are laminated so as to be electrically connected in parallel (parallel [0041]-[0043]),
the power-generating layers being adjacent to each other are laminated while interposing at least one current collector out of the plurality of current collectors (plurality of unit cells connected in parallel [0041]-[0043]),
each of the power-generating layers of the power-generating element is sandwiched between two adjacent current collectors out of the plurality of current collectors (see Fig. 6-7),
a side surface of the power-generating element includes
a first region where each of the power-generating layers does not recede from the current collector out of the plurality of current collectors which is adjacent to each of the power-generating layers (Fig. 6-7 shows a first region in which unit cell does not recede), and
a second region where each of the power-generating layers recedes from the current collector out of the plurality of current collectors which is adjacent to each of the power-generating layers so as to form a recess (Fig. 6-7 shows a second region where unit cell ‘recedes’ to form a recess), and
the battery includes
an insulating member that covers the electrode layer and the electrode current collector in the second region (protective layer 6 [0064], Fig. 6-7, disposed in a ‘recess’ in a ‘second region’), and
a conductive member that covers the second region and the insulating member, and is electrically connected to at least one of principal surfaces of the counter electrode current collector (external collection layers 7a,7b [0065], Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 2, Hayashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hayashi further discloses the first regions are located on the side surface so as to sandwich the second region from both sides in a direction perpendicular to a direction of lamination of the power-generating element (Fig. 6-7 show ‘first region’ sandwiching ‘second region’).
Regarding claim 3, Hayashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hayashi further discloses the recesses formed by recession of the respective power-generating layers are arranged in the second region in a direction of lamination of the power-generating element (Fig. 6-7 show ‘recesses’).
Regarding claim 5, Hayashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hayashi further discloses the second regions are separated by the first region (Fig. 6-7 show ‘second region’ sandwiching ‘first region’).
Regarding claim 7, Hayashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hayashi further discloses the conductive member covers principal surfaces on both sides of the current collector that is adjacent to the recess (external collection layers 7a,7b [0065], Fig. 7 show external collection layers 7a,7b covering both sides of the current collector adjacent to the recess).
Regarding claim 8, Hayashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hayashi further discloses an insulating member that covers each of the power-generating layers in the second region (protective layer 6 [0064], Fig. 6-7 show protective layer 6 covering unit cell in the ‘second region’).
Regarding claim 9, Hayashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hayashi further discloses the counter electrode layer recedes from the electrode layer in the second region (Fig. 6-7 show one electrode layer receding from an opposing polarity electrode layer in the ‘second region’).
Regarding claim 10, Hayashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hayashi further discloses the insulating member further covers at least part of the solid electrolyte layer in the second region (protective layer 6 [0064], Fig. 6-7 show protective layer 6 covering the solid electrolyte layer 3 in the ‘second region’).
Regarding claim 11, Hayashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hayashi further discloses the insulating member further covers the first region (protective layer 6 [0064], Fig. 6-7 show protective layer 6 covering the ‘first region’).
Regarding claim 12, Hayashi discloses a method for manufacturing a battery (method [0063]) comprising:
a first step of preparing a plurality of unit cells each having a structure in which a power-generating layer and a current collector are laminated, the power-generating layer including an electrode layer, a counter electrode layer, and a solid electrolyte layer located between the electrode layer and the counter electrode layer (constructing unit cells [0063]; layered solid battery including stacked unit cells [0039]); and
a second step of forming a power-generating element by laminating the plurality of unit cells (stacking [0063]), wherein
the second step is a step of connecting the plurality of unit cells in parallel (parallel [0041]-[0043]) and includes providing a side surface of the power-generating element with a first region where each of power-generating layers of the plurality of unit cells does not recede from the current collector located adjacent to each of the power-generating layers among the current collectors of the plurality of unit cells, and with a second region where a recess is formed by causing each of the power-generating layers to recede from the current collector located adjacent to each of the power-generating layers among the current collectors of the plurality of unit cells (Fig. 6-7 shows a first region in which unit cell does not recede and a second region where unit cell ‘recedes’ to form a recess), and
an insulating member that covers the electrode layer and an electrode current collector being electrically connected to the electrode layer in the second region (protective layer 6 [0064], Fig. 6-7, disposed in a ‘recess’ in a ‘second region’), and a conductive member that covers the second region and the insulating member and is electrically connected to at least one of principal surfaces of a counter electrode current collector being electrically connected to the counter electrode layer are provided (external collection layers 7a,7b [0065], Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 13, Hayashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hayashi further discloses the recess is formed in the second step such that the first regions sandwich the second region from both sides in a direction perpendicular to a direction of lamination of the power-generating element (Fig. 6-7 show ‘first region’ sandwiching ‘second region’).
Regarding claim 14, Hayashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hayashi further discloses the recess is formed in the second step by subjecting each of the power-generating layers to any of partial cutting, polishing, sandblasting, brushing, etching, laser irradiation, and plasma irradiation (Fig. 6-7 show a ‘recess’, wherein layers used to form the ‘recess’ would be cut to shape and, thus, form the ‘recess’).
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.
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) 4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US 2013/0149593A1, as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 7-14 above.
Regarding claim 4, Hayashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Although Hayashi does not further disclose a maximum depth of the recess is larger than a width of the recess in a direction of lamination of the power-generating element, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to change the size or relative dimensions of the recess such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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.
Regarding claim 6, Hayashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Although Hayashi does not further disclose a length of the second region in a direction perpendicular to a direction of lamination of the power-generating element is larger than a length of the first region in the direction perpendicular to the direction of lamination of the power-generating element on the side surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to change the size or relative dimensions of the recess such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7937. 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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at (571)270-3879. 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.
/James Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 8/21/2026
Prosecution Insights