Examiner’s Preliminary Notice and Request for Particularization
Subject: Patent family tree for inventions relating to solid-state battery separators
I. Scope Clarification Required
To prepare an accurate and legally reliable patent family tree, it is necessary to specify the scope parameters. Kindly provide:
- Seed reference(s):
- At least one priority or publication identifier to anchor the family (e.g., a WO, EP, US, JP, KR, or CN application/publication number), or
- A narrowly defined applicant list (e.g., Toyota, Samsung SDI, LG Energy Solution, Toray, Asahi Kasei, Nitto Denko, Murata, Ohara, Idemitsu Kosan, Solid Power, QuantumScape, Ionic Materials, etc.), or
- A defined technical nucleus (e.g., sulfide glass-ceramic sheet separators; garnet LLZO tape-cast separators; NASICON/LATP membranes; polymer–ceramic composite solid separators; ceramic-coated polyolefin separators for solid-state cells).
- Family definition to be applied:
- DOCDB “simple family” (documents sharing exactly the same earliest priority or identical combination of priorities), or
- INPADOC “extended family” (documents linked directly or indirectly by at least one common priority and certain technical relations such as divisionals, continuations, continuations-in-part, additions).
- Temporal and jurisdictional scope:
- Filing window (e.g., 2005–2024),
- Jurisdictions to include (e.g., US, EP, JP, CN, KR, WIPO PCT).
- Relationship depth and deliverable detail:
- Include continuations, continuations-in-part (CIPs), divisionals, reissues/re-examinations, utility models, and national phase entries?
- Include current legal status (granted, pending, withdrawn, lapsed, expired), oppositions, post-grant reviews, annuity status?
- Output format preferences (hierarchical tree, tabular annex, or both).
Absent the foregoing particulars, any produced “tree” would risk over- or under-inclusion. Given the legal consequences of family scope in prior art and double patenting analyses, such risk is not acceptable.
II. Methodology and Authorities
A legally robust family reconstruction will proceed as follows, conforming to established database practices and patent office guidance:
- Source authorities:
- WIPO Patentscope: PCT data, priority claims, national phase entries.
- EPO Espacenet/Global Dossier: DOCDB and INPADOC family data; legal status; opposition records.
- USPTO Patent Center/PAIR (historical): domestic benefit (35 U.S.C. §§ 119(e), 120), continuations, divisionals, CIPs, reissues, reexaminations.
- J-PlatPat (JP), CNIPA/CPRS (CN), KIPRIS (KR), and EU Register (EP) for local legal status and divisionals.
- Family construction rules:
- Identify the earliest valid priority (Paris or domestic benefit) and then all directly or indirectly linked applications.
- Distinguish family types:
- DOCDB simple family: exact shared earliest priority set.
- INPADOC extended family: transitive closure over shared priorities and recognized technical relationships (divisionals, continuations, CIPs, etc.).
- Explicitly annotate relationship type on each edge: Paris priority, PCT filing, national phase entry, continuation, CIP, divisional, addition, reissue, reexamination.
- Normalize bibliographic variations (name changes, assignments, transliterations).
- Verify legal status per jurisdictional register; record relevant events (allowance, grant, lapse, withdrawal, opposition outcome).
- Subject-matter inclusion filter:
- Constrain to claims directed to solid-state separator structures or solid electrolytic membranes separative between electrodes (not merely liquid-electrolyte separators), using CPC and keywords:
- CPC examples: H01M10/0542 (inorganic solid electrolytes), H01M10/0525 (polymer electrolytes), H01M10/0562 (oxide solid electrolytes), H01M50/10–/113 (separators; membranes; diaphragms—verify specific leaf groups during search).
- Keywords: solid electrolyte, solid-state separator, ion-conducting membrane, garnet/LLZO, NASICON/LATP/LLTO, sulfide glass, polymer–ceramic composite, ceramic-coated separator, tape-cast, densified membrane, sintered separator.
- Quality controls:
- Reconcile conflicts between INPADOC and national registers; the national register controls for legal status.
- Flag suspected erroneous priority linkages for manual review.
- Produce a family audit trail (citations to each register extract used).
III. Deliverable Format (Family Tree Dossier)
For each family, I will provide:
A. Family header
- Family identifier (internal reference)
- Family type (DOCDB simple, INPADOC extended)
- Earliest priority: number, date, country, applicant at filing
- Technical synopsis: one-sentence subject matter characterization (neutral, claim-based)
B. Hierarchical tree (textual)
- Indentation by relationship depth with explicit relationship labels and dates, for example:
- [Priority] JP 20XX-XXXXX filed YYYY-MM-DD (Applicant)
- [PCT] WO20XX/XXXXXX filed YYYY-MM-DD; published YYYY-MM-DD
- [National] EPXXXXXXX.A1 filed YY; pub YY; status: granted/lapsed; oppositions: yes/no
- [Divisional] EPXXXXXXX.X filed YY; pub YY; status …
- [National] US 20XX/XXXXXXX (application) → [Continuation] US X,XXX,XXX (grant) → [Reexam/Reissue] if any
- [National] CNXXXXXXX.X …
- [Divisional] JP 20XX-YYYYYY …
- Each node annotated with: application/publication/grant numbers, key dates, current legal status.
C. Tabular annex
- One row per document: Jurisdiction; App. No.; Pub. No.; Grant No.; Filing; Pub.; Grant; Relationship; Current status; Assignee; CPC; Title (truncated); Notes.
D. Legal-status annex
- Chronological event list (grants, annuity lapses, withdrawals, oppositions and outcomes, reexams).
E. Source citations
- Direct links or identifiers for each register entry consulted.
IV. Optional Landscape Consolidation (if requested)
If you prefer a landscape-level deliverable instead of a single-family dossier, I can prepare a consolidated family map across the principal assignees and separator modalities during a defined window (e.g., 2010–2024), deduplicated at the INPADOC-extended-family level, including:
- Top families by geographic breadth and family size,
- Earliest-priority timelines by separator class (sulfide, oxide, NASICON, polymer–ceramic composite, ceramic-coated polyolefin for solid-state architectures),
- Assignee migration (assignments, spin-outs),
- Representative claim exemplars for each modality.
V. Next Steps
Please provide:
- One or more seed identifiers (e.g., WO/US/EP/JP/CN numbers), or a shortlist of applicants and a filing window.
- The family definition you want applied (DOCDB simple vs. INPADOC extended).
- The jurisdictions and depth of relationship tracking desired.
- Any formatting constraints for the final work product.
Upon receipt, I will proceed to compile and deliver the patent family tree in accordance with the foregoing methodology, with full citation to official registers and an auditable chain of evidentiary sources.
