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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/19/2026 has been entered.
Status of Application
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9 are currently pending. Claim 1 is currently amended. Claims 3, 5, 8, 10, 12-15 are cancelled. Claim 11 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are not found persuasive because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,4,6,7,9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (WO2019226020A1, US equivalent US20210184218A1 was used for citation/translation), in view of Jung (previously cited, KR20180033838A, translation previously provided) and Lee (KR20140029157A, translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Ahn discloses a graphite material particle for use in a lithium-ion secondary battery, the graphite material particle comprising a structure comprising:
a graphite particle (i.e., platy natural graphite [0077])
Ahn further discloses wherein Li2S-P2S5 (i.e., inorganic solid) are provided in the pores and integrated with the graphite particle ([0077-0078]; see Fig 2,3)
However, Ahn does not disclose that the inorganic solid includes Na2.88Sb0.88W0.12S4 and has a relative permittivity of 10 or more when in a powder form.
In this regard, Jung also teaches an electrode active material-solid electrolyte composite, wherein the electrode active material may be a carbon-based material and the solid electrolyte disposed on the electrode active material which may be selected from the list comprising xLi2S-(100-x)P2S5 (50<x<90) (pg 8, under “The electrodes and All solids battery section”) or a sulfide-based compound such as NaaMbScX1d, wherein 0<a≤6, 0<b≤6, 0<c≤6, 0≤d≤6, and M is at least one selected from a list comprising Sb and W (see pg 4; chemical Formula 1), wherein the subscript ranges encompass the claimed subscripts of the claimed inorganic solid Na2.88Sb0.88W0.12S4.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the encompassed range of subscripts and used the claimed Na2.88Sb0.88W0.12S4 as an alternative solid electrolyte, as Jung teaches the solid electrolyte provides a high ionic conductivity (i.e., greater than 10-4 S/cm; see pg 4). A person having ordinary skill in the art would further envisage the solid electrolyte to inherently have a relative permittivity of 10 or more when in a powder.
Ahn further discloses wherein the graphite material particle comprises pores (see Fig 2,3) and that the graphite material may have a particle diameter in a range of 5 μm to 25 μm or 10 μm to 20 μm [0032]. However, Ahn does not explicitly disclose wherein the pores each have a diameter of less than 100 nm.
In this regard, Lee also directed to a graphite material for a negative active material for a rechargeable lithium battery, wherein the battery may comprise solid electrolyte (pg 5), and the graphite material comprises natural graphite having an average particle diameter of 3-40µm (pg 4, paragraph 1) and micropores on its surface and inside of the spherical natural graphite particles (pg 4, paragraph 6). Examiner considers micropores as pore diameters of less than 2nm per IUPAC definition, which falls within the claimed range of “less than 100nm”. Lee further teaches the micropores improve reactivity with the electrolyte, thereby realizing a lithium secondary battery having high-rate charge/discharge characteristics (pg 4, paragraph 6).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the pores of Ahn such that they are within the claimed range with a reasonable expectation to improve reactivity with the electrolyte and improve rate charge/discharge characteristics of the battery.
Ahn further discloses wherein the inorganic solid is in 5 wt%, and the graphite particle is in 94wt% (see Example 2 in Table 1), wherein a weight ratio of the inorganic solid to the graphite particle is about 5% by weight (i.e., 5/94), which does not fall within the claimed range of “0.01% by weight or more and 0.5% by weight or less”.
In this regard, Jung teaches wherein the weight ratio of the solid electrolyte to the electrode active material particles is 0.1:99.9 to 50:50 (see pg 6, Electrode active material particle section) which overlaps with the claimed weight ratio of “0.01% by weight or more and 0.5% by weight or less”.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the overlapping weight ratio as Jung teaches that such weight ratio provides ion transfer path (pg 6, Electrode active material particle section).
Regarding claim 2, modified Ahn discloses the graphite material particle for use in a lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the inorganic solid (i.e., Na2.88Sb0.88W0.12S4) has a Na ion conductivity (see Electrode Active Material - Solid Electrolyte Complex section in pg 6- Jung).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ahn discloses the graphite material particle for use in a lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 2, wherein the inorganic solid has an ionic conductivity of greater than 10-4 S/cm (see Electrode Active Material - Solid Electrolyte Complex section in pg 6- Jung), which overlaps with the claimed range of “10-7S/cm or more”. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ionic conductivity range with a reasonable expectation to provide a graphite material particle having high ionic conductivity.
Regarding claims 6,7,9, modified Ahn discloses an electrode for use in a lithium-ion secondary battery, the electrode comprising the graphite material particle according to claims 1 {claim 6}, 2 {claim 7}, 4 {claim 9} [Ahn 0083].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEYOUNG SON whose telephone number is (703)756-1427. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 5/21/2026
Prosecution Insights