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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 24 June 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, and 8-17 are currently pending
Claim 1 is amended
Claims 2 and 4-7 have been cancelled
Claims 11-13 have been previously withdrawn
New claims 15-17 have been added
Status of Amendments
The amendment filed 24 June 2026 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Status of Objections and Rejections of the Office Action from 26 March 2026
The 103 rejections over Nakashima in view of Kamiya further in view of Takano and further in view of Yamamoto have been withdrawn, as in view of Applicant’s amendment. However, a new grounds of rejection over Nakashima in view of Kamiya further in view of Sasaki and further in view of Yamamoto has been set forth, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 8-10, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima et al. (US 20200014071 A1), hereinafter Nakashima, in view of Kamiya et al. (US 20110065007 A1), hereinafter Kamiya, further in view of Sasaki (US 20180366777 A1), hereinafter Sasaki, and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20190296289 A1), hereinafter Yamamoto.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 8-10, and 15-17, Nakashima teaches an electrode material, as required by claims 1 and 17, in this case an anode layer 22, as required by claims 8 and 17 [0093], comprising an active material, as required by claims 1 and 17, in this case graphite, as required by claims 9, 10, 16, and 17 [0230], and a solid electrolyte, as required by claims 1 and 17 [0071], in this case having lithium-ion conductivity, as required by claim 3, such as lithium-ion conductive glass or lithium-ion conductive glass ceramics [0072], or comprising sulfide solid electrolyte, as required by claims 16 and 17 [0174-0175]. Examiner notes that the sulfide solid electrolyte options are considered to be art recognized equivalents of the lithium-ion conductive glass or lithium-ion conductive glass ceramics and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect them to also have lithium-ion conductivity.
Nakashima is silent as to a filling rate of the electrode material. However, Kamiya teaches a similar electrode material with a filling rate of no less than 85% [0050]. This overlaps with the claimed filling rate of 80% or more and 93.1% or less, as required by claims 1 and 17. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Nakashima and Kamiya are both considered to be equivalent to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrode materials comprising an active material and a solid electrolyte. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakashima with the fill rate of Kamiya. Doing so would have improved the energy density and the ion conduction path of the electrode material [0050].
Nakashima teaches a median diameter, in this case the average grain size D50, of the active material being between 3 and 8 µm (Table 2). Nakashima is silent as to the median diameter of the solid electrolyte being smaller than a median diameter of the active material, as required by claims 1 and 17. However, Sasaki teaches a similar electrode material comprising negative electrode active material, such as graphite [0060], and a sulfide solid electrolyte [0028], wherein the median particle diameter of the sulfide solid electrolyte may be smaller than that of the negative electrode active material [0046] and refers to the D50, the particle diameter at which the cumulative volume of the particles in their particle size distribution is 50% [0047].
Nakashima and Sasaki are both considered to be equivalent to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of negative electrode materials comprising graphite and sulfide solid electrolytes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the median diameter of the electrolyte of Nakashima with the relationship taught by Sasaki in such a way that a median diameter of the sulfide solid electrolyte is smaller than a median diameter of the negative electrode active material. Doing so would have led to better dispersion of the sulfide solid electrolyte material and the particulate active material [Sasaki 0046], allowing the layer to be sufficiently thin and help to improve the discharge characteristics of the battery [Sasaki 0044].
Nakashima is silent as to a content of the active material in the electrode material. However, Yamamoto teaches a similar electrode material comprising graphite [0030] and sulfide solid electrolyte [0026], wherein a content of solid electrolyte material can be 60 wt% or less and 10 wt% or more [0031]. This is equivalent to a content of the active material in the electrode material being 40 wt% or more and 90 wt% or less, which overlaps with the claimed content range of 40 wt% to 80 wt% of claims 1 and 17. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Nakashima and Yamamoto are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrode materials comprising graphite and sulfide solid electrolytes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the content of the active material of Nakashima with the content wt% taught by Yamamoto. Doing so would have increased the lithium-ion conductivity in the electrode material [Nakashima 0031].
Nakashima is silent as to a length of an interface between the active material and the solid electrolyte per unit area of a cross section of the electrode material being 0.29 µm/µm2 or more and 0.571 µm/µm2 or less, as required by claims 1 and 17. However, Nakashima teaches the presence of a relationship between the aspect ratio of the anode active material and the interfacial bonding ability of the anode active material and the solid electrolyte in the anode layer [0225]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that altering the aspect ratio of an active material particle would directly impact the length of the interface between the active material and the solid electrolyte. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized the aspect ratio, likewise optimizing the length of the interface between the active material and the solid electrolyte per unit area of the cross section of the electrode material, in order to improve the interfacial bonding of the anode active material and the solid electrolyte in the anode layer, improve the cycle characteristics of the electrode, and decrease interfacial resistance through improved electron paths [0225]. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Further, modified Nakashima teaches an electrode material comprising the claimed active material, the claimed solid electrolyte, the claimed median diameter relationship between the active material and the solid electrolyte, an overlapping active material diameter with the disclosed active material diameter (instant specification pg. 9, lines 28-29), the claimed filling rate, and the claimed content of the active material in the electrode material. In addition to the obvious optimization of the aspect ratio, modified Nakashima teaches a substantially identical composition to the claimed product. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a length of an interface between the active material and the solid electrolyte per unit area of a cross section of the electrode material disclosed by modified Nakashima to lie within the claimed range. When a structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or function are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.01. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Nakashima is silent as to the length of the interface being a value calculated in a measurement region selected such that an observation area A of the cross-section of the electrode material satisfies A≥(20D)2, in the case where the median diameter of the active material is defined as D, as required by claims 15 and 17. However, regarding porosity measurement, Nakashima teaches the cross section of the anode layer being shot by SEM such that a field of view is greater than 200 µmx200 µm, which is equivalent to 40,000 µm2 [0234]. Given a median active material diameter of between 3 and 8 µm as D (Table 2), (20D)2 would produce a range of 3,600-25,600 µm2. Therefore, the field of view satisfies A≥(20D)2. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the same observation area of the cross section of the electrode material as a measurement region for measuring both the porosity of the electrode material and the length of the interface. Therefore, the limitation is considered to be met.
Regarding claim 14, Nakashima teaches a battery 20 comprising:
a first electrode 21;
a second electrode 22; and
an electrolyte layer 23 positioned between the first electrode 21 and the second electrode 22 [0059], wherein
at least one selected from the group consisting of the first electrode and the second electrode comprises the electrode material according to claim 1, in this case the second electrode, as taught by modified Nakashima.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that adjusting the aspect ratio of the active material particles and adjusting the length of the interface between the active material and the solid electrolyte are not equivalent technical operations because the length of the interface between the active material and the solid electrolyte depends on a large number of variables, including aggregation state, dispersion state, particle sizes, and filling rate. Examiner respectfully points out that the aggregation state is not recited in the rejected claims. Examiner also notes that the instant specification only teaches how to measure the length of the interface in the case where aggregated particles form (instant specification pg. 5, lines 26-34) and is silent as to a particular relationship existing between particles being aggregated and the length of the interface. Further, the instant specification teaches a connection between a favorable dispersion state and a content of the active material in the electrode material being 40 wt% or more and 80 wt% or less. Modified Nakashima teaches a substantially identical composition, as outlined above, comprising, among other properties, the disclosed particle sizes, the claimed filling rate, and the claimed active material content, which is considered to inherently provide a favorable dispersion state. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a length of an interface between the active material and the solid electrolyte per unit area of a cross section of the electrode material disclosed by modified Nakashima to lie within the claimed range. Further, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the particle aspect ratios to optimize the interfacial bonding of the anode active material and the solid electrolyte in the anode layer, which would inherently optimize the length of an interface between the active material and the solid electrolyte per unit area to be within the claimed range.
In response to applicant's argument that Nakashima is directed to a different objective than the present application, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the median particle sizes of claim 1 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 DUSTIN KENWOOD VAN KIRK whose telephone number is (703)756-4717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/DUSTIN VAN KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights