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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/28/26 has been entered.
Rejections Repeated
1. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a) rejection of claims 1,3,5,7,13-15 anticipated by Muraoka has been repeated as previously made in office action 1/30/26.
As to new limitation “wherein the ceramic particles have an ion conductivity of about 10-8 S/cm to about 10- S/cm,” since Muraoka discloses SiO2 ceramic particles it is inherent wherein the ceramic particles have an ion conductivity of about 10-8 S/cm to about 10- S/cm. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. ”A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658(Fed. Cir. 1990)
2. The 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection of claim 4 unpatentable over Muraoka has been repeated as previously made in office action 1/30/26.
3. The 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection of claim 6,8 unpatentable over Muraoka in view of Dai has been repeated as previously made in office action 1/30/26.
4. The 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection of claim 9-10 unpatentable over Muraoka in view of Choi has been repeated as previously made in office action 1/30/26.
5. The 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection of claim 11-12 unpatentable over Muraoka in view of Takijiri has been repeated as previously made in office action 1/30/26.
New Rejection
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.
6. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muraoka in view of Pistorino et al. (US20170187063).
Muraoka discloses the positive electrode described above. Muraoka fail to disclose wherein the ceramic particles comprise Li20-SiO2-TiO2- P205,Li20-Al203-TiO2-P205, Li20-Al203-SiO2-P205-TiO2, Li20-Al203-SiO2-P205-TiO2-GeO2, Li3A1Ti2Si1P2012, Li1.5Alo.5Ge1.5P3012, Li1.3Alo.3Ti1.7(P04)3, Li2S-P2S5,LiN, Lil,Li5NI2, Li3N-Lil-LiOH, LiSiO4, LiSiO4-Lil-LiOH, Li2SiS3, Li4SiO4, Li4SiO4-Lil-LiOH, Li2S, Li2S-SiS2, Li2S-GeS2, Li2S-B2S5, Li2S-Al2S2, CaF2, Agl, or a combination thereof.
Pistorino et al. teaches ceramic particles Li2SP2S5 for the purpose of increasing ionic conductivity of the cathode thus increasing the overall rate performance of the cell (paragraph 0015,0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time applicant's invention was made to provide Muraoka with ceramic particles Li2SP2S5 for the purpose of increasing ionic conductivity of the cathode thus increasing the overall rate performance of the cell (paragraph 0015,0043).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANE J RHEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1499. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10-6:30).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/JANE J RHEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights