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 § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Iwano (US20170352923A1).
Regarding claim 1, Iwano teaches an electrode laminate (Figure 2b) that uses curable resin deposited on two sides faces of the electrode stack to hold the stack together and act as a fixing member (Figure 11c, paragraph [0052]). As shown in annotated Figure A, the resin has a thin film region that is deposited so that the thin region is on the fixing member’s terminal end, and the terminal end of the battery , and a thick film region that is on the opposite side of the terminal end and of thin film region (Figure 11c, Examples 2-4).
PNG
media_image1.png
307
869
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A
Regarding claim 2, Iwano teaches all the elements of the electrode laminate stated in claim 1 and the thinnest point of the fixing member is at the terminal end, as it comes to a sharp point due to the tapered shape of the jig used, as shown in annotated Figure A, and the thickness of the fixing member at the terminal end is no more than 50% the thickness of the thick region, since the terminal end of takes on a sharp point (Figure 11c).
Regarding claim 5, Iwano teaches all the elements of the electrode laminate stated in claim 1 and teaches a battery using the electrode laminate and a battery case that encompasses the battery, made of the fixing members on the side faces and the outermost collector layers of the battery, which act as terminals for the internal electrode stack (paragraph [0027], Figure 9C, elements 8, 7, 1a, and 1b).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwano (US20170352923A1).
Regarding claim 3, Iwano teaches all the elements of the electrode laminate stated in claim 1 and teaches the electrode laminate is made up of repeating stacks of a positive electrode mixture layer, a solid electrolyte layer, and a negative electrode mixture layer, which are stated to have a max thickness in the height direction of 1 mm and a minimum thickness of 0.1 μm (paragraphs [0061], [0063], and [0066]), and are encased in collecting layers having a thickness range in the height direction of 15 μm to 200 μm (paragraph [0058]). Using these height measurements ranges for the layers in annotated Figure A would offer a range of examples that would allow the thin film region of the fixing member to be 0.3 μm to 3 mm, which overlaps with the claimed minimum height of the thin film region of the fixing member to be at least 1mm. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 4, Iwano teaches all the elements of the electrode laminate stated in claim 1 and describes the max protrusion length of a layer of the laminated stack the one below it is no smaller than 0.5 mm and no larger than 5 mm (Figure 3B paragraph [0070]). To properly form the cohesive fixing member, the resin must properly cover the entire electrode laminate in a continuous layer, as shown in Figure 11c. As such, when the protrusion length the fixing member in Iwano is within the range described above, in order to properly form the cohesive fixing member, the fixing member must extend past the protrusion length of the protruding electrode. This would create a region above the protruding layer that is thicker than the protrusion length, as shown in the annotated Figure B. Thus, the thickness of the fixing member in the thick film region would be longer than the protrusion length, creating a range for the thickness of the thick film region of the fixing member that overlaps with 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. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 (I)) .
PNG
media_image2.png
326
851
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure B
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Jacob Williams whose telephone number is (571)270-7712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am- 4 pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571)272-1307. 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.
/M.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 3 September 2026
Prosecution Insights