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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is amended. Claims 2 and 5-11 are cancelled. Claim 4 stands withdrawn. Claims 1 and 3, as filed 13 November 2025 are examined herein. No new matter is included.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach or suggest the thickness range of 20-150 µm as in amended claim 1. This argument is moot in light of a newly citation from Wachsman. Examiner further notes that assuming arguendo that Ikejira’s 200 µm green electrode is used without modification, Kaijura (US 6679926 B1) reports (col. 7 lines 30-35) shrinkage during sintering of about 7%. Therefore, Ikejira’s electrode is expected to be roughly 186 µm after sintering, slightly above the claimed range of 20-150 µm.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 as claimed is drawn to “an electrode layer provided on the solid electrolyte layer and made of a sintered body of an electrode material layer containing an electrode active material precursor powder having an average particle diameter of not less than 0.01 µm and less than 0.7 µm.”
The following is a quotation from the appropriate paragraphs of MPEP 2113 that forms the basis for examining guidelines of product-by-process claims:
[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.
Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.
The specification at [0040] states “the average particle diameter means D50 (a volume-based average particle diameter) and refers to a value measured by the laser diffraction/scattering method.” Said differently, the diameter measurement refers to the precursor material used to make the sintered body, not to the sintered body itself. As long as the prior art teaches the sintered material capable of being made from a powdered precursor, it meets the requirements of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-3 further limit the product-by-process limitations of claim 1, and are, hence, examined under the same guidelines.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Ikejira (US 20170005337 A1) in view of Wachsman (US 20140287305 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ikejira teaches a member (abstract: composite material as an electrode; [0021] positive electrode) for a power storage device (abstract: sodium ion secondary battery) comprising: a solid electrolyte layer (FIG. 1 electrolyte layer 3); and an electrode layer provided on the solid electrolyte layer (FIG. 1 positive electrode layer 2, electrolyte layer 2; [0052-0053] composite material as an electrode) and made of a sintered body of an electrode material layer ([0090] “the resultant was fired at 450˚C for 1 hour).
Ikejira does not explicitly teach the electrode active material precursor powder having an average particle diameter of not less than 0.01 µm and less than 0.7 µm. However, Ikejira discloses [0055] The active material crystal powder and the active material crystal precursor powder each have an average particle diameter D50 of … still more preferably 5 µm or less. “When the average particle diameters D50 of the active material crystal powder and the active material crystal
precursor powder are too large, sodium ion diffusion resistance increases, and battery performance tends to deteriorate. On the other hand, lower limits of the average particle diameters D50 of the active material crystal powder and the active material crystal precursor powder are not particularly limited but are each 0.1 µm or more practically. This overlaps the range of the instant claim.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to optimize the particle size of Ikejira’s positive active material, with a reasonable expectation of obtaining an electrode with a low sodium ion diffusion resistance and therefore good battery performance, thus rendering obvious selection of a particle size meeting the instant claim limitation.
Regarding the limitation wherein the electrode layer has a thickness of 20 µm or more and 150 µm or less, Ikejira discloses [0090] the application of the positive active material slurry to an electrolyte layer, where the coating thickness before sintering is 200 µm. Ikejira does not disclose a linear shrinkage amount during sintering and does not place any particular limits on the thickness of the positive electrode active material. At [0007] Ikejira discloses the importance of making a dense composite material electrode in order to create a high energy density battery.
Wachsman discloses a similar solid state ion conductive battery which is [0006] suitable for use with sodium-containing cathode material. At (FIG. 3) Wachsman discloses a porous positive electrode having a thickness of 70 µm and a porous negative electrode having a thickness of about 50 µm, both of which fall within the claimed 20 to 150 µm. At [0034] Wachsman discloses that the battery operates by intercalating [and de-intercalating] the conductive ion into the anode material. At [0041] and FIG. 3 both anode and cathode materials are stored in pores of the electrolyte material. A person of ordinary skill would understand that if an electrolyte and active material layer is too thick, the diffusion distance for the conductive ion will be too long, resulting in decreased battery performance and even underutilization of the active material. (e.g. the conductive ion will not have access to some of the active material if the layer is too thick). The person of ordinary skill will also understand that if the active material layer is too thin, the volumetric energy density will be reduced, because the positive and negative current collectors generally have a minimum available thickness. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the electrode thickness of Ikejira, based on the teaching of Wachsman, with a reasonable expectation of arriving at a thickness falling withing the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, modified Ikejira discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Ikejira does not explicitly teach wherein an amount of electrode active material supported in the electrode layer is 3 mg/cm2 or more.
At Table 1, Wachsman discloses a cathode active material loading of 17 mg/cm2. (Falls within the claimed range.) At [0120] Wachsman discloses that the resulting battery has high energy density.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select the active material loading of Wachsman for the battery of modified Ikejira, with a reasonable expectation of successfully creating a battery with a high energy density.
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 CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 11/25/2025