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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 2, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed November 7, 2025 have been entered. Claim 1 has been amended; support for the amendments can be found at least in paragraph [0055]. Claims 1-14 remain pending and have been examined on their merits in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed November 7, 2025 have been fully considered but are considered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection below in view of Applicant’s amendments to the independent claim 1.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lars et al. (DE 102018205413 A1), hereinafter referred to as Lars, in view of Yang et al. (CN 109950617 A), hereinafter referred to as Yang.
Regarding claim 1, Lars teaches a cathode (“positive electrode material comprising a positive electrode active material”) for a solid-state lithium cell (see e.g., paragraph [0009]). Lars teaches the cathode comprises at least one graphene material (“a carbon material for occluding at least one selected from the group consisting of a halogen and a halide”), especially as a cathode active material, and at least one solid electrolyte (see e.g., paragraph [0010]).
Lars teaches the at least one solid electrolyte comprises at least one lithium-ion conductive solid electrolyte (see e.g., paragraph [0012]); however, Lars does not teach a material represented by the following composition Formula (1), wherein Formula (1) is LiaMbXc, where a, b, and c are each a value greater than 0, M includes at least one element selected from the group consisting of metalloid elements and metal elements other than Li, and X includes a halogen element and wherein the halogen and the halide are generated by oxidation of the halogen element included in Formula (1).
However, Yang teaches an inorganic chloride based solid electrolyte (see e.g., Abstract). Yang teaches the inorganic chloride-based solid electrolyte is represented by Li3YxCl6-x, where 0 < x ≤ 2.5 (see e.g., paragraph [0009]). Yang teaches the inorganic chloride based solid electrolyte provides better safety performance, higher energy density, better cycle performance, and simpler battery structure (see e.g., paragraph [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the solid electrolyte material of Lars to be an inorganic chloride-based solid electrolyte is represented by Li3YxCl6-x, where 0 < x ≤ 2.5, as taught by Yang, in order to produce a battery with better safety performance, higher energy density, better cycle performance, and simpler battery structure (see e.g., paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 4, Lars, as modified by Yang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Lars teaches the carbon material comprises graphene (“the carbon material includes at least one selected from the group consisting of graphene”) (see e.g., paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 5, Lars, as modified by Yang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Lars teaches the carbon material comprises graphene (“the carbon material includes at least one selected from the group consisting of graphene”) (see e.g., paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lars teaches that M includes Y, as discussed above (see e.g., Yang, paragraph [0009]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Lars teaches that X includes Cl, as discussed above (see e.g., Yang, paragraph [0009]).
Regarding claim 9, Lars, as modified by Yang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Lars teaches a lithium solid-state cell (“a battery”) comprising the positive electrode as previously described in claim 1 (“a positive electrode including the positive electrode material according to claim 1”) (see e.g., paragraphs [0002] and [0010]). Lars teaches a negative electrode (“a negative electrode”) (see e.g., paragraph [0043]). Lars teaches a solid electrolyte is interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (“an electrolyte layer disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode”) (see e.g., paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 10, Lars, as modified by Yang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 9, as previously described.
Lars teaches the anode comprises metallic lithium and/or at least one carbon-based lithium insertion and/or intercalation material, for example graphite and/or amorphous carbon, so-called hard carbons, and/or at least one silicon-based lithium insertion and/or intercalation material, for example silicon and/or at least one silicon alloy, and/or at least one inorganic, in particular ceramic (“wherein the negative electrode includes a negative electrode active material capable of occluding lithium”) (see e.g., paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 11, Lars, as modified by Yang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 9, as previously described.
Lars teaches the anode comprises metallic lithium and/or at least one carbon-based lithium insertion and/or intercalation material, for example graphite and/or amorphous carbon, so-called hard carbons, and/or at least one silicon-based lithium insertion and/or intercalation material, for example silicon and/or at least one silicon alloy, and/or at least one inorganic, in particular ceramic (“wherein the negative electrode includes at least one selected from the group consisting of metal lithium, a lithium alloy, a carbon material, silicon, a silicon alloy, and silicon oxide”) (see e.g., paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 14, Lars, as modified by Yang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 9, as previously described.
As previously described in claims 1 and 9, the battery of Lars, as modified by Yang,, is structured such that it includes all of the requisite features of the instantly claimed positive electrode material and battery. Therefore, when subjected to the instantly claimed conditions (i.e., during charge and during discharge) it would behave in the instantly claimed manner.
It is noted that “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 (See MPEP 2112.01 II).”
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lars et al. (DE 102018205413 A1) in view of Yang et al. (CN 109950617 A), and further in view of Sawada et al. (WO 2019026940 A1, citations from corresponding Published U.S. Patent Application US 2020/0176816 A1), hereinafter referred to as Sawada.
Regarding claim 2, Lars, as modified by Yang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Lars, as modified by Yang, does not explicitly teach wherein in a Raman spectrum of the carbon material, a ratio of ID/IG of an intensity ID of a peak appearing in a range of 1300 cm-1 to 1400 cm-1 to an intensity IG of a peak appearing in a range of 1500 cm-1 to 1700 cm-1 is 0 or more and 2 or less.
However, Sawada teaches a carbon material that can improve the cycle characteristic in charge and discharge of an all-solid-state battery, and the carbon material is a carbon material to be contained in a positive electrode of an all-solid-state battery (see e.g., Abstract). Sawada teaches the carbon material, when in a Raman spectrum acquired by Raman spectroscopy, produces a D/G ratio (a peak intensity ratio between the D band and G band in a Raman spectrum of the carbon material) is 0.8 or lower (“wherein in a Raman spectrum of the carbon material, a ratio of ID/IG of an intensity ID of a peak appearing in a range of 1300 cm-1 to 1400 cm-1 to an intensity IG of a peak appearing in a range of 1500 cm-1 to 1700 cm-1 is 0 or more and 2 or less”) (see e.g., paragraph [0066]). Sawada teaches where the D/G ratio is in this range, the electroconductivity of the carbon material itself can be much more enhanced, and the amount of gasses generated can also be much more reduced (see e.g., paragraph [0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify graphene material of Lars, as modified by Yang, to have a D/G ratio be 0.8 or lower, as taught by Sawada, in order to enhance the electroconductive of the carbon material and reduce the amount of gasses generated (see e.g., paragraph [0066]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the D/G ratio is 0.8 or lower overlap with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 2, Lars, as modified by Yang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Lars, as modified by Yang, does not explicitly teach wherein the carbon material has a BET specific surface area of more than 5 m2/g.
However, Sawada teaches a carbon material that can improve the cycle characteristic in charge and discharge of an all-solid-state battery, and the carbon material is a carbon material to be contained in a positive electrode of an all-solid-state battery (see e.g., Abstract). Sawada teaches the BET specific surface area of the carbon material is more preferably 5 m2/g or larger (“wherein the carbon material has a BET specific surface area of more than 5 m2/g”) (see e.g., paragraph [0040]). Sawada teaches this range of BET specific surface area of the carbon material allows for the securing contact points with the active material more sufficiently (see e.g., paragraph [0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify graphene material of Lars, as modified by Yang, to have a BET specific surface area of 5 m2/g or larger, as taught by Sawada, in order to allow for the securing contact points with the active material more sufficiently (see e.g., paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 12, Lars, as modified by Yang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 9, as previously described.
Lars teaches the solid electrolyte is interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (“wherein the electrolyte layer includes a solid electrolyte material”) (see e.g., paragraph [0049]).
Lars, as modified by Yang, does not explicitly teach a composition of the solid electrolyte material is different from a composition of the material represented by the composition formula (1).
However, Sawada teaches the solid electrolyte is interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (see e.g., paragraph [0083]) and comprises sulfide-based solid electrolyte (“wherein the electrolyte layer includes a solid electrolyte material, and a composition of the solid electrolyte material is different from a composition of the material represented by the composition formula (1)”) (see e.g., paragraph [0135]) because the sulfide-based solid electrolyte has a much larger effect of improving the stability in itself and the lithium ion conductivity (see e.g., paragraph [0137]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify solid electrolyte layer of Lars, as modified by Yang, to be a sulfide-based solid electrolyte, as taught by Sawada, in order to improve the stability and the lithium ion conductivity (see e.g., paragraph [0137]).
Regarding claim 13, Lars, as modified by Yang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 9, as previously described.
Lars, as modified by Yang, does not explicitly teach wherein the electrolyte layer includes a sulfide solid electrolyte.
However, Sawada teaches the solid electrolyte is interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (see e.g., paragraph [0083]) and comprises sulfide-based solid electrolyte (“wherein the electrolyte layer includes a sulfide solid electrolyte”) (see e.g., paragraph [0135]) because the sulfide-based solid electrolyte has a much larger effect of improving the stability in itself and the lithium ion conductivity (see e.g., paragraph [0137]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify solid electrolyte layer of Lars, as modified by Yang, to be a sulfide-based solid electrolyte, as taught by Sawada, in order to improve the stability and the lithium ion conductivity (see e.g., paragraph [0137]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lars et al. (DE 102018205413 A1) in view of Yang et al. (CN 109950617 A), and further in view of Sun et al. (CN 110137561 A), hereinafter referred to as Sun.
Regarding claim 7, Lars, as modified by Yang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Lars, as modified by Yang, does not explicitly teach wherein M includes Y and Zr.
However, Sun teaches a lithium secondary battery additive that is LibMaXc, wherein M is Y and Zr, X is F, Cl, Br, or I, and 0.2 ≤ b, ≤ 6, 0.1 ≤ a ≤ 3, 1≤c≤9 (see e.g., Abstract). Sun teaches this additive produces high ion conductivity and air stability, improves can improve the rapid transmission of electrode ions, increase the electrode load and thickness, and be compatible with existing lithium secondary battery electrode materials (see e.g., paragraph [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the M of the solid electrolyte of Lars, as modified by Yang,, to include Y and Zr, as taught by Sun, in order to produce high ion conductivity and air stability, improve can improve the rapid transmission of electrode ions, increase the electrode load and thickness, and be compatible with existing lithium secondary battery electrode materials (see e.g., paragraph [0007]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine N Higgins whose telephone number is (703)756-1196. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays - Thursdays 7:30-4:30 EST, Fridays 7:30 - 11:30 EST.
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 T 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.
/KATHERINE N HIGGINS/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights