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 § 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.
Claims 1-3, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (US 20160248120 A1, “Yamada”) in view of Ouchi et al. (WO 2013073290 A1, “Ouchi”). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 1, Yamada discloses a method of producing an all-solid-state battery (see title “method of manufacturing” & “all solid secondary battery”), the method comprising: preparing a structure that includes, in the following order, a first exterior member (see FIG. 2 describes “pressure medium 17”), a first resin layer (see FIG. 2 & [0070] describes “protection body 15 formed of a resin film”), a cell laminate (see FIG. 2 describes “battery laminate 24” which reads on cell laminate), a second resin layer (see FIG. 2 “15”), and a second exterior member (see FIG. 2 “17”); and applying pressure to the structure in a thickness direction of the structure (see [0070] describes “charged into a high pressure container” & see [0080] describes “laminate 24 is sandwiched between a press 25”). Yamada does not explicitly disclose at a temperature at which the first resin layer and the second resin layer melt or soften, however, melting temperature is a property of the resin material.
Ouchi teaches in [0055] “applying pressure while heating” & “preferable to laminate the green sheet at temperatures between 20 °C and 100 °C while softening the resin”).
Yamada and Ouchi are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely all-solid state battery and methods for manufacturing (see title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate applying heat while pressurizing, as suggested by Ouchi (see [0055]) into the method of Yamada because doing so is preferable as suggested by Ouchi (see [0055]).
Regarding claim 2, Yamada discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein application of the pressure is performed with an object that is flat at a surface facing the structure (see FIG. 2 describes “pressure medium 17” & describes flat at a surface facing the structure).
Regarding claim 3, Yamada discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising applying isotropic pressure to the structure.
Ouchi teaches isotropic press (see [0091]) & describes in [0054] “a dense laminate with minimal peeling”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate isotropic press, as suggested by Ouchi (see [0091]) into the method of Yamada because doing so produces “a dense laminate with minimal peeling”, as suggested by Ouchi (see [0054]).
Regarding claim 7 and claim 8, Yamada discloses the all-solid-state battery of claim 4 and claim 6 and further discloses thermoplastic (see [0053]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the first resin layer and the second resin layer includes a thermoplastic resin.
Ouchi teaches in [0073] “polyvinyl alcohol resin” & describes “molded into thin sheets” & describes “molded bodies of the outer layer 11 and inner layer 12 that constitute the setter 10 shown in Figure 1 were produced” & a skilled artisan would recognize PVA resin is a thermoplastic resin. Ouchi teaches in [0073] “polyvinyl alcohol resin to achieve the porosity”. Ouchi teaches in [0112] “no internal short circuit”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate PVA, as suggested by Ouchi (see [0073]) into the method of Yamada because doing so achieves the desired porosity, as suggested by Ouchi and further doing so provides no internal short circuit, as suggested by Ouchi (see [0112]).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (US 20160248120 A1, “Yamada”).
Regarding claim 4, Yamada discloses an all-solid-state battery (see title “all solid secondary battery”), comprising a structure that includes, in the following order, a first exterior member (see FIG. 2 describes “pressure medium 17”), a first resin layer (see FIG. 2 & [0070] “protection body 15 formed of a resin film”), a cell laminate (see FIG. 2 describes “battery laminate 24” which reads on cell laminate), a second resin layer (see FIG. 2 “15”), and a second exterior member (see FIG. 2 “17”), at least one of the first resin layer being bonded to the cell laminate (see [0070] “charged into a high pressure container” which reads on being bonded; see FIG. 2).
Regarding the method limitations recited in claim 4, “at least one of the first resin layer being bonded to the cell laminate”, the Office notes that even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F. 2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process). See MPEP § 2113.
Regarding claim 5, Yamada discloses the all-solid-state battery of claim 4 and further discloses wherein each of the first resin layer and the second resin layer is bonded to the cell laminate (see [0070] describes “charged into a high pressure container” & see [0080] describes “laminate 24 is sandwiched between a press 25” & see FIG. 2 describes “24 battery laminate”).
Regarding claim 6, Yamada discloses an all-solid-state battery (see title “all solid secondary battery”), comprising a structure that includes, in the following order, a first exterior member (see FIG. 2 “pressure medium 17”), a first resin layer (see [0070] “protection body 15 formed of a resin film”), a cell laminate (see FIG. 2 “battery laminate 24”), a second resin layer (see FIG. 2 “15”), and a second exterior member (see FIG. 2 “17”). Regarding the limitation a variation in thickness in an in-plane-direction of an entire body of the structure being smaller than a variation in thickness in an in-plane-direction of the cell laminate, Yamada discloses in FIG. 2 “24 laminate” & in [0070] “a desired hydrostatic pressure value 21 may be applied from the side and upper directions to the negative electrode layer 9, the solid electrolyte layer 7, and the positive electrode layer 5” & describes in [0071] “This process may reduce electric resistance of a battery since a contact between the negative electrode layer 9 and the solid electrolyte layer 7 and a contact between the positive electrode layer 5 and the solid electrolyte layer 7 are sufficiently secured. Further, since densities of the negative electrode layer 9, the solid electrolyte layer 7, and the positive electrode layer 5 may be increased, improvement in current density of the solid state battery 1 may be promoted” & see Table 1 in [0099] describes increasing the hydrostatic pressure improves the initial discharge capacities & see [0103] & [0104].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply more pressure to the top & bottom than to the sides of the cell because doing so improves the contact between the layers and further doing so improves the current density, as suggested by Yamada (see Table 1 & [0099], [0070], [0103], [0104]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, 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.
/S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 07/22/2026
Prosecution Insights