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 and 3-12 are currently pending;
Claim 2 is canceled;
Claims 6—12 are currently withdrawn;
Claim 1 is currently amended.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending Since the Office Action of 04/02/2026
The 103 rejections of claims 1 and 3-5 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and replaced with new 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/02/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 3-5 under 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Kobayashi in view of Sasaki and Kobayashi in view of Sasaki and Takeuchi.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments/comments concerning Sasaki (US 2018/0316057) that was cited as providing disclosure pertinent to the present application, but not used in any rejection, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner acknowledges that Sasaki teaches a sulfide solid electrolyte including a sulfide layer and an oxide layer. However, Sasaki also teaches a coated electrode active material (see fig. 6; paragraphs [0138]; [0158]-[0169]). Sasaki also teaches that the coating material of the coating layer can be a metal oxide ([0162]-[0162] such as LiAlO2, LiTiO, etc.) and that the electrode active material can be a metal sulfide ([0158] the positive electrode active material particle can be a particle described in embodiment 2; [0098] in embodiment 2, examples of positive electrode active materials include transition metal sulfides). Therefore, a metal oxide is coated on an electrode active material that can comprise metal sulfide, not just on an electrolyte particle. Further, the coating coverage is in reference to the coating layer on the electrode active material in paragraph [0165] that describes that the coating layer can cover the entire surface of the electrode active material particle. As such, Sasaki is analogous to the claimed invention and teaches a coated electrode active material.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments concerning the heat treatment utilized in forming an oxide layer on a sulfide solid electrolyte, while Sasaki uses heat treatment in the formation of the coated electrolyte ([0197]), Sasaki presents heat treatment as an optional step in the formation of the coating layer on the positive electrode active material ([0170]). Further, Sasaki would not be relied upon to teach the claimed metal sulfide particle with a composition ratio of sulfur (S) to a metal (M1) (S/M1) of 2.1 to 10 in terms of molar ratio. Instead, the limitation is taught by Kobayashi (Kobayashi [0008]).
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 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (WO-2018181698-A1), hereinafter Kobayashi, as cited and translated in the IDS, in view of Sasaki et al. (US 20180316057 A1), hereinafter Sasaki.
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi teaches coated metal sulfide particles comprising a metal sulfide ([0009]; [0014]; [0029]), the metal sulfide having a composition ratio of sulfur (S) to a metal (M1) (S/M1) of 2.1 to 10 in terms of the molar ratio ([0008] 2.1 or more in molar ratio). 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).
Kobayashi fails to teach that the metal sulfide is partially or totally coated with a coating layer containing a metal oxide, wherein the coverage by the coating layer is 70 to 100%.
Sasaki is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of coated electrode active materials (fig. 6; [0158]-[0169]). Sasaki teaches that the metal sulfide is partially or totally coated with a coating layer containing a metal oxide ([0158]-[0169] electrode active material 41 is coated with coating layer 42; [0158] the positive electrode active material particle can be a particle described in embodiment 2; [0098] in embodiment 2, examples of positive electrode active materials include transition metal sulfides; [0162]-[0162] the coating material can be a metal oxide such as LiAlO2, LiTiO, etc.), wherein the coverage by the coating layer is 50 to 100% (fig. 6; [0158]-[0169]; [0165] the coating layer 42 may cover the entire surface of the electrode active material particle 41 uniformly or alternatively cover only a part of the surface of the electrode active material particle). 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kobayashi and coated the vanadium sulfide particles of Kobayashi with a metal oxide coating such as in Sasaki. Doing so can increase the charge/discharge efficiency (Sasaki [0161]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kobayashi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Kobayashi also teaches wherein the metal oxide is an oxide of titanium and/or aluminum (Sasaki [0162]-[0162] the coating material can be a metal oxide such as LiAlO2, LiTiO, etc.).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kobayashi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Kobayashi also teaches wherein the metal sulfide is a vanadium sulfide ([0009]; [0014]; [0008]; [0029] vanadium sulfide).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Sasaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takeuchi et al. (US-20110037037-A1), hereinafter Takeuchi.
Regarding claim 3, modified Kobayashi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Kobayashi fails to teach wherein the metal sulfide has an average particle size of 1.0 to 8.0 µm ([0035] teaches that there is no limitation on the particle size of the vanadium sulfide, but does not teach specific size values).
Takeuchi is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of metal sulfide particles ([0012]). Takeuchi teaches wherein the metal sulfide has an average particle size of 1.0 to 8.0 µm ([0034] the metal sulfide is preferably a powder with an average particle size of about 0.1 to 100 µm). 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).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the average particle size of the metal sulfide of Kobayashi such that it is 1.0 to 8.0 µm. Doing so improves the reactivity with sulfur, and the metal sulfide can be produced with a smaller amount of sulfur and a smaller number of repetitions (Takeuchi [0040]).
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 MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722 /NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights