Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/699,183

LITHIUM ION SECONDARY BATTERY AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFOR, AND SOLID ELECTROLYTE MEMBRANE FOR LITHIUM ION SECONDARY BATTERY AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFOR

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Mar 21, 2022
Examiner
SRIPATHI, ANKITH REDDY
Art Unit
1728
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Fujifilm Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
74 granted / 111 resolved
+1.7% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
67 currently pending
Career history
178
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
68.6%
+28.6% vs TC avg
§102
14.1%
-25.9% vs TC avg
§112
12.6%
-27.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 111 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 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. Claim(s) 1 & 3-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meguro (US20160359194) in view of Yoshima (US20170358825). Regarding Claim 1 & 10, Meguro discloses a lithium-ion secondary battery ([001]) comprising: A solid electrolyte membrane having an electron-insulating inorganic particle (sulfide based inorganic solid electrolyte contains sulfur, which acts as an electron-insulating inorganic particle, [0046]), and inorganic solid electrolyte particle (Li2S or P2S5 can act as inorganic particle and the other as the electron-insulating particle, [0050]) that has electrolytic solution resistance an ion conducvity ([0046]); Meguro further discloses wherein the void between the particles is filled ([0074]). A positive electrode layer disposed on one side of the solid electrolyte membrane (positive electrode active substance layer-4 on one side of inorganic solid electrolyte layer-3, [0036], Fig.1); A negative electrode layer disposed on a side of the solid electrolyte membrane opposite to one side, where the positive electrode layer is disposed (negative electrode active substance layer-2 on other side of inorganic solid electrolyte layer-3, [0036], Fig.1); and Wherein the thermofused solidified product of the electrode-insulating material is in an amorphous state (sulfide-based electrolyte may be amorphous, [0049]). Meguro does not directly disclose wherein the electron-insulating inorganic particle has a particle diameter of 10 to 500 nm, and where the inorganic solid electrolyte particle has a particle diameter larger than a particle diameter of the electron-insulating inorganic particles. Meguro discloses that there can be two particle distributions for the inorganic particles in the solid electrolyte ([0062]). Meguro further discloses wherein the inorganic solid electrolyte particles are formed with two types or more particles denoted inorganic solid electrolyte particles A and inorganic solid electrolyte particles B ([0062]). Meguro further discloses wherein the average particle diameter of Particles A is 0.4 um to 1.9 um ([0064]). Meguro further discloses wherein the average particle diameter of Particle B is 0.15 um to 1.3 um ([0068]) which overlaps the instant claim range of 10 to 500 nm. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Meguro to have wherein the electron-insulating inorganic particle has a particle diameter of 10 to 500 nm, and where the inorganic solid electrolyte particle has a particle diameter larger than a particle diameter of the electron-insulating inorganic particles. Meguro does not directly disclose wherein the thickness of the solid electrolyte membrane is equal to larger than the particle diameter of the inorganic solid electrolyte x 0.7 and equal to or smaller than the particle diameter of the inorganic solid electrolyte particle x 1.3. Meguro discloses wherein the thickness of the solid electrolyte layer can range from 1 um to 1000 um ([0037]). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Meguro to have wherein the thickness of the solid electrolyte membrane is equal to larger than the particle diameter of the inorganic solid electrolyte x 0.7 and equal to or smaller than the particle diameter of the inorganic solid electrolyte particle x 1.3. Meguro further discloses wherein in the manufacturing method of forming the solid electrolyte, the battery is heated to 60 C or more and 250 C or less ([0165]). Meguro does not directly disclose wherein the electron-insulating material is disposed between the particles to fill a void between the particles, the electrode insulating material having a melting point of more than 100 C and 200 C or lower, wherein the electron-insulating inorganic particle is selected from the group including aluminum oxide, silicon oxide, boron nitride, cerium oxide, diamond, and zeolite, and the inorganic solid electrolyte particle is inorganic particle having a Li ion conductivity, and constituted of a material different from the electrode-insulating inorganic particle. Yoshima discloses a solid electrolyte with organic electrolyte particles and inorganic electrolyte particles ([0034]). Yoshima further discloses wherein the electrolyte is a Li containing oxide solid electrolyte ([0045]). Yoshima further discloses wherein the inorganic solid particles can be aluminum oxide or silicon oxide ([0030]). Yoshima teaches that these materials provide improved high reduction resistance and lower costs ([0030]). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure Meguro with the teachings of Yoshima to have wherein the electron-insulating material is disposed between the particles to fill a void between the particles, the electrode insulating material having a melting point of more than 100 C and 200 C or lower, wherein the electron-insulating inorganic particle is selected from the group including aluminum oxide, silicon oxide, boron nitride, cerium oxide, diamond, and zeolite, and the inorganic solid electrolyte particle is inorganic particle having a Li ion conductivity, and constituted of a material different from the electrode-insulating inorganic particle. This modification would yield the expected result of improved high reduction resistance and lower costs. Regarding Claim 3, Meguro in view of Yoshima discloses the limitations as set forth above. Meguro further discloses wherein the negative electrode active material that constitutes the negative electrode layer contains metallic lithium ([0150]). Regarding Claim 4, Meguro in view of Yoshima discloses the limitations as set forth above. Meguro further discloses wherein the negative electrode is constituted of a metallic lithium layer (negative electrode can be entirely lithium metal, [0150]). Meguro does not directly disclose wherein there is a sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte layer between the metallic lithium layer and the solid electrolyte membrane. Meguro discloses wherein the solid electrolyte layer and can be a single layer or formed with multiple layers ([0038]). Meguro discloses wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte can be formed of various inorganic particles ([0046-0050]). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Meguro to have wherein there is a sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte layer between the metallic lithium layer and the solid electrolyte membrane. Regarding Claim 5, Meguro in view of Yoshima discloses the limitations as set forth above. Meguro further discloses wherein the negative electrode active material layer that constitutes the negative electrode layer contains an electrolytic solution ([0150]). Regarding Claim 6, Meguro in view of Yoshima discloses the limitations as set forth above. Meguro further discloses wherein the lithium ion secondary battery is an all solid lithium ion secondary battery ([0036]). Regarding Claim 7, 8, 11 & 12, Meguro in view of Yoshima discloses the limitations as set forth above. Meguro further discloses wherein the electron-insulating material contains sulfur (sulfide based inorganic solid electrolyte contains sulfur or modified sulfur, which acts as an electron-insulating inorganic particle, [0046], [0048]). Regarding Claim 9, Meguro in view of Yoshima discloses the limitations as set forth above. Meguro does not directly disclose wherein the particle diameter of the electron-insulating inorganic particle and the particle diameter of the inorganic solid electrolyte particle satisfy the following formula, 5 ≤ the particle diameter of the inorganic solid electrolyte/ the particle diameter of the electron-insulating inorganic particle. Meguro discloses that there can be two particle distributions for the inorganic particles in the solid electrolyte ([0062]). Meguro further discloses wherein the inorganic solid electrolyte particles are formed with two types or more particles denoted inorganic solid electrolyte particles A and inorganic solid electrolyte particles B ([0062]). Meguro further discloses wherein the average particle diameter of Particles A is 0.4 um to 1.9 um ([0064]). Meguro further discloses wherein the average particle diameter of Particle B is 0.15 um to 1.3 um ([0068]). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Meguro to have wherein the particle diameter of the electron-insulating inorganic particle and the particle diameter of the inorganic solid electrolyte particle satisfy the following formula, 5 ≤ the particle diameter of the inorganic solid electrolyte/ the particle diameter of the electron-insulating inorganic particle. Regarding Claim 13, Meguro in view of Yoshima discloses the limitations as set forth above. Meguro further discloses a manufacturing method for the solid electrolyte membrane for a lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1 ([004]), the manufacturing method comprising: Forming a layer, in which the electron-insulating material thermofusses, using a composition containing an electron-insulating inorganic particle ([0039]). Solidifying a thermofused product of the electrode-insulating material under a pressure of 100 MPa or more ([0198]). Meguro does not directly disclose wherein the electron-insulating inorganic particle has a particle diameter of 10 to 500 nm, and where the inorganic solid electrolyte particle has a particle diameter larger than a particle diameter of the electron-insulating inorganic particles. Meguro discloses that their can be two particle distributions for the inorganic particles in the solid electrolyte ([0062]). Meguro further discloses wherein the inorganic solid electrolyte particles are formed with two types or more particles denoted inorganic solid electrolyte particles A and inorganic solid electrolyte particles B ([0062]). Meguro further discloses wherein the average particle diameter of Particles A is 0.4 um to 1.9 um ([0064]). Meguro further discloses wherein the average particle diameter of Particle B is 0.15 um to 1.3 um ([0068]) which overlaps the instant claim range of 10 to 500 nm. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Meguro to have wherein the electron-insulating inorganic particle has a particle diameter of 10 to 500 nm, and where the inorganic solid electrolyte particle has a particle diameter larger than a particle diameter of the electron-insulating inorganic particles. Meguro does not directly disclose wherein the thickness of the solid electrolyte membrane is equal to larger than the particle diameter of the inorganic solid electrolyte x 0.7 and equal to or smaller than the particle diameter of the inorganic solid electrolyte particle x 1.3. Meguro further discloses wherein in the manufacturing method of forming the solid electrolyte, the battery is heated to 60 C or more and 250 C or less ([0165]). Meguro does not directly disclose wherein the electron-insulating material is disposed between the particles to fill a void between the particles, the electrode insulating material having a melting point of more than 100 C and 200 C or lower, wherein the electron-insulating inorganic particle is selected from the group including aluminum oxide, silicon oxide, boron nitride, cerium oxide, diamond, and zeolite, and the inorganic solid electrolyte particle is inorganic particle having a Li ion conductivity, and constituted of a material different from the electrode-insulating inorganic particle. Yoshima discloses a solid electrolyte with organic electrolyte particles and inorganic electrolyte particles ([0034]). Yoshima further discloses wherein the electrolyte is a Li containing oxide solid electrolyte ([0045]). Yoshima further discloses wherein the inorganic solid particles can be aluminum oxide or silicon oxide ([0030]). Yoshima teaches that these materials provide improved high reduction resistance and lower costs ([0030]). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure Meguro with the teachings of Yoshima to have wherein the electron-insulating material is disposed between the particles to fill a void between the particles, the electrode insulating material having a melting point of more than 100 C and 200 C or lower, wherein the electron-insulating inorganic particle is selected from the group including aluminum oxide, silicon oxide, boron nitride, cerium oxide, diamond, and zeolite, and the inorganic solid electrolyte particle is inorganic particle having a Li ion conductivity, and constituted of a material different from the electrode-insulating inorganic particle. This modification would yield the expected result of improved high reduction resistance and lower costs. Regarding Claim 14, Meguro in view of Yoshima discloses the limitations as set forth above. Meguro further discloses wherein a solid electrolyte membrane for a lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above) between the positive electrode and a negative electrode (Fig. 1). Regarding Claim 15-17, Meguro in view of Yoshima discloses the limitations as set forth above. Meguro further discloses wherein the electron-insulating material is selected from sulfur, modified sulfur, iodine, and a mixture of sulfur and iodine (sulfide based inorganic solid electrolyte contains sulfur or modified sulfur, which acts as an electron-insulating inorganic particle, [0046], [0048). Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meguro (US20160359194) in view of Yoshima (US20170358825) further in view of Yoshida (US20150086875). Regarding Claim 2, Meguro in view of Yoshima discloses the limitations as set forth above. Meguro discloses wherein the positive electrode active material layer contains an electrolytic solution ([0125]). Meguro discloses wherein the thickness of the positive electrode active substance layer can be adjusted to a desired capacity of the battery ([0037]), however Meguro does not directly disclose wherein the thickness of positive electrode active material layer is 200 to 2000um. Yoshida discloses a battery that uses a sulfide solid electrolyte ([0016]) which has a positive electrode layer ([0018]). Yoshida further discloses wherein the positive electrode thickness can range from 10 to 200 um ([0093]) which overlaps the instant claim range of 200 um to 2000 um. Yoshida teaches that this structure provides improved battery capacity ([0092]). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Meguro with the teachings of Yoshida to have wherein the thickness of positive electrode active material layer is 200 to 2000um. Response to Arguments Applicant’s amendments in view of their arguments, see Claims, filed November 13th, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-14 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Meguro in view of Yoshima. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANKITH R SRIPATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 am - 5:00pm. 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. /ANKITH R SRIPATHI/Examiner, Art Unit 1728 /MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 21, 2022
Application Filed
Jul 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 29, 2025
Interview Requested
Oct 07, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 07, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 13, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 02, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12555780
NEGATIVE ELECTRODE AND SECONDARY BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12523705
Battery Apparatus and Current Sensor Diagnosis Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12519101
CERIA-CARBON-SULFUR COMPOSITE, METHOD FOR PREPARING SAME, AND POSITIVE ELECTRODE AND LITHIUM-SULFUR BATTERY COMPRISING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12506139
Lithium-Doped Silicon-Based Oxide Negative Electrode Active Material, Method of Preparing the Same, and Negative Electrode and Secondary Battery Including the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Patent 12489161
SECONDARY BATTERY AND BATTERY MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+26.2%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 111 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month