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
Claims 1-14 are currently pending
Claims 1 and 4-7 are amended
Claims 11-13 have been previously withdrawn
Status of Amendments
The amendment filed 14 January 2026 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
This action has been made final.
Status of Objections and Rejections of the Office Action from 29 October 2025
The informality objections of claims 4 and 5 have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The 112 rejections of claims 4-7 have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The 103 rejections over Nakashima in view of Kamiya and over Nakashima in view of Kamiya further in view of Yamamoto have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. However, a new grounds of rejection over Nakashima in view of Kamiya further in view of Takano and over Nakashima in view of Kamiya further in view of Takano 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, 3-10, and 14 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 Takano et al. (JP 2014192061 A), hereinafter Takano.
Regarding claims 1 and 3-10, Nakashima teaches an electrode material, in this case an anode layer 22, as required by claim 8 [0093], comprising an active material, in this case graphite, as required by claims 9 and 10 [0230], and a solid electrolyte having lithium-ion conductivity, in this case preferably lithium-ion conductive glass or lithium-ion conductive glass ceramics, as required by claim 3 [0072].
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, as required by claim 1, and 0.95 µm/µm2 or less, as required by claim 4, or 0,571 µm/µm2 or less, as required by claim 5. 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.
Nakashima is also 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, as required by claim 1, and 99% or less, as required by claim 6, or 93.1% or less, as required by claim 7. 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 grain size, 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. However, Takano teaches a similar electrode material comprising negative electrode active material, such as graphite (pg. 2, ¶ 4), and a sulfide-based solid electrolyte, such as a glass ceramic (pg. 2, ¶ 3), wherein the average particle diameter of the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte is preferably smaller than the average particle diameter of the electrode active material (pg. 3, ¶ 4).
Nakashima and Takano 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-based 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 Takano in such a way that a median diameter of the solid electrolyte is smaller than a median diameter of the active material. Doing so would have allowed the sulfide-based solid electrolyte to more easily fill the gaps between the active material particles (pg. 3, ¶ 4), leading to improved flexibility, conductivity, and joinability of the material (pg. 2, ¶ 3; pg. 3, ¶ 2).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima in view of Kamiya further in view of Takano, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20190296289 A1), hereinafter Yamamoto.
Modified Nakashima teaches the electrode material according to claim 1. Nakashima is silent as to a content of the active material in the electrode material being 40 wt% or more and 80 wt% or less. However, Yamamoto teaches a similar electrode material 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. 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 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 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 [0031].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the median diameters 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.
In response to applicant's argument that the cited references do not disclose the problem and advantageous effect of the present application, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
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 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