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;
Claim 1 is amended;
Claims 6-12 are currently withdrawn.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending Since the Office Action of 10/20/2025
The 103 rejections of claims 1 and 3-5 are withdrawn and replaced with new 103 rejections in view of Kobayashi in view of Takeuchi.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 1/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in regards to Applicant’s argument concerning the metal sulfide having a composition ratio of sulfur (S) to a metal (M1) (S/M1) of 2.1 to 10 in terms of molar ratio. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in regards to the coverage by the coating layer being 50 to 100% (see Remarks beginning on pg. 6). Regarding Applicant’s argument that Takeuchi teaches that the metal sulfide is only partially covered with a metal oxide and that the preferred range is 3 to 40 % (Remarks pg. 6; Takeuchi [0078]; [0082]), and therefore there would be no motivation to increase the coating coverage taught in Takeuchi to arrive at the claimed subject matter, the examiner respectfully disagrees. While 3% to 40% coverage is the preferred range, Takeuchi also teaches a range of 1 to 50% (Takeuchi [0082]) that overlaps the claimed range at least with 50% coverage, and further teaches in the same paragraph that there is no particular limitation to the proportion of the surface of the metal sulfide covered with metal oxide. Therefore, there is motivation to increase the coating coverage to at least the claimed subject matter at 50%. 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).
In regards to Applicant’s argument concerning the unexpected results of the claimed range, the examiner respectfully disagrees (Remarks pgs. 6-7). The capacity retention of each cycle (%) of the Comparative Examples 2 and 3 shown in the table provided in the Remarks was not provided in the originally filed disclosure. Even if considered, the evidence is not sufficient to show criticality, as the provided evidence of unexpected results only compares one example that utilizes the claimed range. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). Further, each example given utilizes different methods and materials. Comparative Example 2 uses a different coating method and a different metal oxide material (aluminum oxide) as compared to example 1 and comparative example 3 (sputtering method; instant specification pg. 28, lines 5-15, [0097]). Comparative Example 3 uses a different method for coating with a titanium oxide (tumbling-fluidization method; instant specification pg. 28, lines 18-25; [0098]-[0099]). Example 1 uses a different method for coating with a titanium oxide than Comparative Examples 2-3 (pg. 25 line 26 – pg. 26 line 5; [0087]). Given these different methods and materials, Example 1 and Comparative Examples 1-3 cannot be directly compared to show the unexpected results of the different coverage amounts. As a result, the argument is not persuasive.
Given the persuasiveness of the argument concerning the composition ratio of sulfur to a metal, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kobayashi in view of Takeuchi.
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 3-5 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 Takeuchi et al. (US-20110037037-A1), hereinafter Takeuchi, as cited in the IDS.
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 50 to 100%.
Takeuchi is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of metal sulfide particles ([0012]). Takeuchi teaches that the metal sulfide is partially or totally coated with a coating layer containing a metal oxide ([0016]), wherein the coverage by the coating layer is 50 to 100% ([0082] 1 to 50%). 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 Takeuchi. Doing so allows for satisfactory charge and discharge capacity, excellent cycle performances, and suppression of the dissolution of sulfur (Takeuchi [0078]).
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 no limitation on the particle size of the vanadium sulfide, but no specific values).
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 sulfur can be produced with a smaller amount of sulfur and a smaller number of repetitions (Takeuchi [0040]).
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 (Takeuchi [0018] teaches a titanium oxide).
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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US-20180316057-A1 teaches a sulfide material covered with an oxide layer, wherein the oxide layer may cover the entire surface of the sulfide layer or cover only a portion of the surface of the sulfide layer ([0090]). US-20180316057-A1 also teaches that a positive electrode active material can be a transition metal sulfide, and that an electrode active material particle can be fully or partially covered by a coating layer including an oxide ([0059]; [0098]; [0165]).
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