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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 08/08/2024, 02/27/2025, 11/03/2025, and 07/24/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-9 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 1 states “an inactivation area laser processed on an outer boundary edge of the activation area.” This limitation is indefinite as applicant is claiming that an inactivation area is provided on the activation area. Examiner further notes that the phrase “laser processed” appears to be a product by process as written and is interpreted to be requiring an inactivation area at an outer boundary edge of the activation area. Claims 2-9 are rejected for depending upon claim 1.
Claim 2 states the limitation “on which the active material is continuously coated together with an active material layer”. This limitation is indefinite as it is unclear if applicant is claiming two active material layers or just a single active material layer. Examiner will interpret that the active material is part of the active material layer for examination.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al. (US 2009/0087730 A1) in view of Sakurai (US 2018/0138482 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kondo discloses an all-solid state battery, comprising:
A positive electrode plate provided with an active material on a positive electrode current collector ([0028,0036,0041-0044] cathode having active material and a current collector as a first electrode);
A solid electrolyte layer disposed on one side of the positive electrode plate ([0034] solid electrolyte); and
A negative electrode plate disposed on one side of the solid electrolyte layer (Figure 11-13, anode 7 placed between the electrolyte),
Wherein the positive electrode plate comprises
An activation area of the active material ([0152] active material); and
An inactivation area (Figure 11; [0105, 0138] restrictor 18 is made of an insulating material such as an inactive material which does not affect a battery reaction and thus can be selected to be the material for the restrictor; [0129-0130]). It would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to select the insulating inactive material for the material of the restrictor 18 taught from the list of materials as disclosed by Kondo as a simple selection of a known material. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). Examiner further notes that the limitation “laser processed” appears to be a product by process as written and is interpreted to be requiring an inactivation area at an outer boundary edge of the activation area and thus the structure of Kondo is deemed to read on the limitations as claimed. Even if not, a secondary reference Sakurai is used to discloses wherein laser processing can be provided in a battery cell as Kondo is silent with respect to wherein laser processing is provided.
Sakurai discloses a separator integrated electrode plate and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Sakurai further discloses wherein laser cutting of the electrode region can be done to form and process the electrode ([0007-0008,0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the laser processing of Sakurai in the battery of Kondo such that the laser processing can be used to cut the electrode to allow for formation and shaping of the restrictor/inactivation area. Thus through the modification all the claim limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious. Examiner notes the 112B rejections above and requests clarification as to the structure of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kondo discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Sakurai further discloses wherein the positive electrode plate is formed by laser- cutting the positive electrode current collector on which the active material is continuous coated together with an active material layer (Sakurai Figure 17A-17C laser cutting is done to remove active material; see modification of claim 1). Through the modification of claim 1, the active material/resistor can be but through the laser cutting process of Sakurai and thus would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, modified Kondo discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Kondo further discloses wherein the inactivation area is configured to block entry and exit of lithium ions (Figure 11; [0105, 0138] restrictor 18 is made of an insulating material such as an inactive material which does not affect a battery reaction and thus can be selected to be the material for the restrictor and would not conduct and allow for lithium ions to enter or exit; [0129-0130]).
Regarding claims 4-5, modified Kondo discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Kondo further discloses wherein the inactivation area is used and would be considered unable to allow ions to pass through due to the inactivation of the material. Kondo is silent with respect to the method of the inactivation of the inactivation area through deformation of the active material crystal structure on the positive electrode plate or through denaturation of solid electrolyte in the solid electrolyte layer, however, is deemed to be a functionality/intended use of the inactivation area. Thus Kondo’s resistor material is deemed to be capable of performing the intended use/functionality of denaturation and deformation as claimed as the claimed structure of the inactivation area is the same as the prior art. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use, for an old product, does not make a claim to that old product patentable. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2114).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kondo discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Sakurai further discloses wherein, in the activation area, the positive electrode current collector is melted and modified to be contained in the active material ([0031-0034] laser beam is used for melting the resin/separator layer to permeate the in-region active material portion and thus through the combination of incorporating the cutting laser beam within Kondo according to claim 1 the collector can be melted and modified to be contained in the active material as taught by Sakurai).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kondo discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Sakurai further discloses wherein the positive electrode plate is formed by laser cutting the positive electrode current collector on which the active material is coated (Sakurai Figure 17A-17C laser cutting is done to remove active material; see modification of claim 1). Through the modification of claim 1, the active material/resistor can be but through the laser cutting process of Sakurai and thus would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 7 as coating of the active material can be coating by applying the active material on the current collector in a pattern or continuous layer. Examiner notes the breadth of the claims as applicant fails to teach or disclose a specific pattern being claimed and thus any coating of the active material can be considered to be a specific pattern.
Regarding claim 8, modified Kondo discloses all the claim limitations of claim 7. Kondo further discloses wherein the inactivation area is formed in a convex raised portion on an outer boundary edge (Figure 8; restrictor 18 is formed on an edge of the active material that can read on a convex raised portion on an outer boundary edge and is similar to the structure of the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kondo discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Kondo further discloses wherein the inactivation area is formed in a width of 0.1 to 1 mm ([0143] average thickness of the restrictor 18 is between 30-500 micrometers). 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kojima (US 2020/0136191 A1)- discloses a method for producing an all solid state battery having a laser cutting regions of the electrode.
Tomura et al. (US 2017/0207482 A1)- discloses a method for manufacturing all solid state battery having an insulation material 3ax provided around an edge of the electrode assembly.
Visco et al. (US 2016/0190640 A1)- discloses a solid electrolyte sheet for a battery cell wherein the electrode is cut by a laser to form and shape the electrode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 pm EST.
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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
