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
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Oishi (US Pub No. 2020/0014070)
Regarding Claim 1, Oishi et al. teaches an all-solid battery comprising:
a solid electrolyte layer [3, Fig. 1, 0029];
a first electrode layer [1, Fig. 1, 0030] that is provided on a first main face of the solid electrolyte layer [3, Fig. 1, 0029]
and includes an electrode active material [1B, Fig. 1, 0048]; and
a second electrode layer [2, Fig. 1, 0048] that is provided on a second main face of the solid electrode layer [3, Fig. 1, 0029] and includes an electrode active material [2B, Fig. 1, 0048],
Oishi et al. teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; therefore, it is the view of the examiner, based on the teaching of Oishi et al., has a reasonable basis to believe that the claimed properties are inherently possessed by the device of Oishi et al. meeting the limitation of “characterized in that wherein when the all solid battery is heated with an increase rate of 20 °C/min, CO₂ of 30 mg/cm³ or more and 53 mg/cm³ or less is externally generated from the all solid battery from 550 °C to 700 °C and CO2 of 90 mg/cm³ or more and 155 mg/cm³ or less is externally generated from the all solid battery from 550 °C to 750 °C, per a unit volume (cm³) of the all solid battery.”
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi (US Pub No. 2020/0014070) in view of Yushin (US Pub No. 2020/0235420)
Regarding Claim 2, Oishi et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Oishi et al. is silent on characterized in that wherein the solid electrolyte layer has a cavity including CO₂ inside thereof.
Yushin et al. teaches a solid electrolyte which has cavities [pore space, 0219] in a battery [abstract].
Since Oishi et al. teaches the use of a battery with a solid electrolyte, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the solid electrolyte of Oishi et al. with the solid electrolyte design of Yushin et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi (US Pub No. 2020/0014070) in view of Blackburn (US Pub No. 2021/0143448)
Regarding Claim 3, Oishi et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Oishi et al. is silent on characterized in that wherein a thickness of the solid electrolyte layer is 5 µm or more and 30 µm or less.
Blackburn et al. teaches a solid electrolyte with a thickness of 500 nm to 40 um overlapping the claimed 5 um or more and 30 um or less [0097].
Since Oishi et al. teaches the use of a battery with a solid electrolyte, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the solid electrolyte of Oishi et al. with the electrolyte thickness of Blackburn et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi (US Pub No. 2020/0014070) in view of Hu (Nano Lett. 2020, 20, 3620−3626)
Regarding Claim 4, Oishi et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Oishi et al. is silent on an evaluation method of an all-solid battery characterized by comprising:
evaluating the all-solid battery by detecting CO₂ externally generated from the all-solid battery when performing charging and discharging of the all-solid battery as claimed in claim 1.
Hu et al. teaches a method of measuring CO2 in the solid-state battery [page 3624, middle right and bottom right of page].
Since Oishi et al. teaches a solid-state battery, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the method of Hu et al. to the solid-state battery of Oishi et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional method for testing CO2 in a solid-state battery, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights