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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/30/2025 has been entered.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but were not found persuasive over the previous prior art rejection of record for the reasons set forth below. See claims 1-2, 6 and 8 rejections below.
Applicant argues that “the positive electrode active material layer and the negative electrode active material layer consist of active material and carbon particles and therefore do not include glass, unlike the configuration of Tanaka” (see e.g. page 5 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tanaka discloses that the positive electrode active material paste and the negative electrode active material paste are Li3V2(PO4)3 and KS-6, which are the positive electrode active material powder and the negative electrode active material powder, respectively. The SiO2 described in Tanaka is used in the paste preparation and functions as a processing or binder component rather than as an active material component of the electrode active material layer itself. The claims are directed to the composition of the active material layer, and Tanaka teaches active material layers composed of Li3V2(PO4)3 and carbon particles. Furthermore, modification or omission of binder or processing additives such as glass or SiO2 would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as binder selection and inclusion are well known to be design choices depending on desired mechanical properties and processing conditions. Applicant has not provided evidence that excluding glass produces unexpected results or that Tanaka teaches away from a glass-free formulation. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Tanaka is silent about D10 and D90 of the carbon materials and that Cericola discloses agglomerated particles having a D90 of 20–60 µm and therefore would not lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to the claimed D10 and D90 ranges” (see e.g. page 5 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Cericola expressly discloses particle size distributions for conductive carbon particles, including D10 and D90 values for non-agglomerated particles that fall within the claimed ranges. The fact that Cericola also discloses agglomerated particles having larger particle sizes does not negate the disclosure of smaller particle distributions. A reference is prior art for all that it teaches, including alternative embodiments. Cericola explicitly teaches conductive carbon particles with particle size distributions suitable for improving electrochemical performance and conductivity, and therefore provides motivation to select particle sizes within the disclosed ranges. Selecting a particle size distribution within the ranges disclosed by Cericola in order to optimize conductivity and electrode performance would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization and result-effective variable selection. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Tables 3 and 4 of the present application demonstrate critical significance of the claimed particle size distribution and carbon particle content” (see e.g. page 6 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The data presented in Tables 3 and 4 do not compare the claimed invention with the closest prior art of Tanaka or Cericola and therefore do not demonstrate unexpected results relative to the prior art. Attorney argument and conclusory statements regarding criticality are insufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness without comparative evidence showing unexpected results over the prior art ranges. The claimed ranges overlap or are encompassed by the ranges disclosed in Cericola, and overlapping ranges establish a prima facie case of obviousness absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results. Applicant has not provided sufficient comparative evidence demonstrating unexpected results at the claimed range boundaries. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Tanaka and Cericola and that the references relate to different structures and mechanisms (see e.g. page 6 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tanaka and Cericola are in the same field of endeavor, namely conductive carbon additives for battery electrode active material layers, and both references are concerned with improving electrical conductivity, electrochemical performance, and electrode structure. Cericola specifically teaches carbon particles with improved electrochemical properties and conductivity suitable for use as conductive additives in electrode materials. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the conductive carbon particle teachings of Cericola to the electrode active material layers of Tanaka in order to improve conductivity and electrochemical performance. Applicant has not identified any teaching away, incompatibility, or technical barrier that would prevent the combination. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “neither Tanaka nor Cericola discloses or suggests a symmetric electrode structure” (see e.g. pages 6-7 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tanaka explicitly discloses that Li3V2(PO4)3 produced by the disclosed method was used as both the positive electrode active material and the negative electrode active material. Using the same active material for both the positive and negative electrodes necessarily results in a symmetric electrode structure. Therefore, Tanaka discloses a symmetric electrode structure as recited in the claims. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “neither Tanaka nor Cericola discloses utilizing multiple redox potentials” (see e.g. page 7 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recite utilizing multiple redox potentials as a structural limitation of the battery, and therefore this argument is not commensurate in scope with the claims. The claims are directed to structural and compositional features of the battery and electrode layers, which are disclosed or rendered obvious by Tanaka in view of Cericola. Arguments directed to unclaimed features are not persuasive. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “there is a synergistic effect between the particle size distribution and the symmetric electrode structure” (see e.g. page 7 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence demonstrating a synergistic effect resulting from the combination of particle size distribution and symmetric electrode structure relative to the prior art. Allegations of synergy must be supported by comparative data showing that the combined effect is greater than the sum of the individual effects. The specification data does not provide a comparison against the closest prior art configurations of Tanaka and Cericola and therefore does not establish unexpected synergistic results. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “there is a lack of motivation to combine Tanaka and Cericola and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have selected Li3V2(PO4)3 for both electrodes” (see e.g. page 7 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tanaka already teaches the use of Li3V2(PO4)3 as both the positive and negative electrode active material. Cericola teaches improved conductive carbon particles suitable for electrode active materials. The motivation to combine arises from the desire to improve conductivity and electrochemical performance of electrode active materials, which is explicitly taught by Cericola. Combining known conductive carbon particle structures with known electrode active material systems to improve performance would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In conclusion, the arguments and amendments filed were not found to be persuasive over the previous prior art rejection of record. The rejections of the claims have been updated to reflect the amendments where appropriate. See claims 1-2, 6 and 8 rejections below.
Summary
This is a continued examination non-final office action for application 17/908,632 in response to the amendments filed on 12/30/2025. Claims 1-2, 6 and 8 are under examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copies have been filed in parent Application Nos. JP2020-039384 filed on 03/06/2020 and PCT/JP2021/000154 filed on 01/06/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS)s submitted on 03/01/2022 and 03/26/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP-2018-170189-A) with evidentiary reference KS6 Conductive Carbon Black Technical Data Sheet and further in view of Cericola et al. (US-20150099180-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Tanaka discloses an all-solid-state battery (see e.g. "all solid state secondary battery" in Abstract) comprising:
a positive electrode layer (see e.g. part number 2 in FIG. 1) including a positive electrode current collector layer (see e.g. "positive electrode current collector layer" in Abstract and part number 2 in FIG. 1) and a positive electrode active material layer (see e.g. "positive electrode active material layer" in Abstract and part number 3 in FIG. 1);
a negative electrode layer (see e.g. part numbers 5 and 6 in FIG. 1) including a negative electrode current collector layer (see e.g., "negative electrode current collector layer" in Abstract and part number 6 in FIG. 1) and a negative electrode active material layer (see e.g. "negative electrode active material layer" in Abstract and part number 5 in FIG. 1); and
a solid electrolyte layer containing a solid electrolyte (see e.g. "solid electrolyte layer" in Abstract and part number 4 in FIG. 1),
wherein the positive electrode active material layer and the negative electrode active material layer contain carbon particles (see e.g. "the positive electrode active material layer, the negative electrode active material layer... contains a carbon material" in Abstract and “The shape of the carbon material constituting the positive electrode current collector layer, the positive electrode active material layer, the negative electrode active material layer, and the negative electrode current collector layer can be freely selected from shapes such as particles, chains, needles, and plates” on page 3 paragraph beginning with “The shape of the carbon material”).
Tanaka discloses that the carbon particles contained on the positive and negative electrode active material layer are KS-6 and manufactured by TIMICAL Graphite & Carbon (see e.g. "The positive electrode active material paste and the negative electrode active material paste are Li3V2(PO4)3 and KS-6 (manufactured by TIMICAL Graphite & Carbon" in Example 1 (Preparation of positive electrode active material paste and negative electrode active material paste) Section on page 12). KS-6 has an interlayer distance of 0.3354-0.3360 nm (see e.g. Beyond Battery KS-6 Technical Data Sheet).
Tanaka discloses a range that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Tanaka does not explicitly disclose that the positive electrode active material layer and the negative electrode active material layer each contain 0.5 wt% or more and 15.0 wt% or less of carbon particles.
Tanaka, however, does disclose the preparation of the positive and negative electrode active material pastes. Specifically, Tanaka discloses a volume ratio of Li3V2(PO4)3:KS-6:SiO2 in a mixed powder and further specifies that 100 parts of this mixed powder are combined with 15 parts ethyl cellulose and 65 parts dihydroterpineol to make the paste (see e.g. Example 1 (Preparation of Positive Electrode Active Material Paste and Negative Electrode Active Material Paste) Section on page 12).
Additionally, Tanaka provides a specific example where the volume ratio of Li3V2(PO4)3:KS-6:SiO2 is 48.5:50:1.5 (see e.g. Example 6 in the (Examples 2 to 6) Section on page 13). Based on this information and the known densities of each component, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to calculate the wt% of carbon particles (KS-6) in the active material layers.
For a simplified calculation, assuming a volume of 100 cm³, the following applies:
Li3V2(PO4)3 has a density of 3.0 g/cm³, resulting in a weight of 48.5 cm³ × 3.0 g/cm³ = 145.5 g
KS-6 has a Scott density of 0.071 g/cm³, resulting in a weight of 50 cm³ × 0.071 g/cm³ = 3.55 g
SiO2 has a density of 2.65 g/cm³, resulting in a weight of 1.5 cm³ × 2.65 g/cm³ = 3.975 g
The total weight of the mixture can then be found:
145.5 g + 3.55 g + 3.975 g = 153.025 g
The individual weight percentages can then be calculated as follows:
Li3V2(PO4)3: 145.5 g / 153.025 g × 100 ≈ 95.0%
KS-6: 3.55 g / 153.025 g × 100 ≈ 2.3%
SiO2: 3.975 g / 153.025 g × 100 ≈ 2.5%
Thus, the calculated weight ratio of the mixed powder is approximately: 95:2.3:2.5.
Next, incorporating the additional 15 parts ethyl cellulose and 65 parts dihydroterpineol (totaling 180 parts including the mixed powder mixture):
The wt% of KS-6 in the active material is: 2.3 / 180 × 100 ≈ 1.2%
Thus, Tanaka discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Tanaka further discloses the positive electrode active material layer consists of positive active materials and the carbon particles (see e.g. "The positive electrode active material paste and the negative electrode active material paste are Li3V2(PO4)3 and KS-6... which are the positive electrode active material powder and the negative electrode active material powder" in the (Preparation of positive electrode active material paste and negative electrode active material paste) section on page 12; Li3V2(PO4)3 is the positive active material and KS-6 is the carbon particles), and the negative electrode active material layer consists of negative active materials and the carbon particles see e.g. "The positive electrode active material paste and the negative electrode active material paste are Li3V2(PO4)3and KS-6... which are the positive electrode active material powder and the negative electrode active material powder" in the (Preparation of positive electrode active material paste and negative electrode active material paste) section on page 12; Li3V2(PO4)3is the negative active material and KS-6 is the carbon particles), and
wherein the positive active materials and the negative active materials each comprise Li3V2(PO4)3as a NASICON-type phosphoric acid-based active material (see e.g. "The positive electrode active material paste and the negative electrode active material paste are Li3V2(PO4)3 and KS-6... which are the positive electrode active material powder and the negative electrode active material powder" in the (Preparation of positive electrode active material paste and negative electrode active material paste) section on page 12; Li3V2(PO4)3 is the NASICON-type phosphoric acid-based active material for both the positive and negative electrode), and the all-solid- state battery has a symmetric electrode structure in which the same Li3V2(PO4)3 is used as both the positive active materials and the negative active materials (see e.g. " Li3V2(PO4)3produced by the following method was used as the positive electrode active material and the negative electrode active material" in the (Preparation of positive electrode active material paste and negative electrode active material paste) section on page 12; Li3V2(PO4)3 is used as the active material for both electrodes thus the all-solid-state battery disclosed by Tanaka has a symmetric electrode structure).
Tanaka does not explicitly disclose a particle size distribution of the carbon particles, D10 is 0.1 µm or more, and D90 is 5.0 µm or less. Tanaka does disclose that the carbon particles are KS-6 and manufactured by TIMICAL Graphite & Carbon (see e.g. "The positive electrode active material paste and the negative electrode active material paste are Li3V2(PO4)3 and KS-6 (manufactured by TIMICAL Graphite & Carbon" in Example 1 (Preparation of positive electrode active material paste and negative electrode active material paste) Section on page 12). KS-6 has a D10 of 1.5 µm (see e.g. Beyond Battery KS-6 Technical Data Sheet). However, Tanaka does not disclose that the carbon particles have a D90 of 5.0 µm or less (KS-6 has a D90 of 6.2 µm).
Cericola, however, in the same field of endeavor, modified carbon particles for the use of a conductive additive in electrode active materials, discloses a surface modified carbon particle wherein in a particle size distribution of the carbon particles, D10 is 0.70 µm, and D90 is 2.5 µm (see e.g. paragraph [0130] of Cericola).
Cericola discloses points that lie within the ranges claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point that lies within the claimed ranges, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Cericola also teaches that the surface modified carbon particles exhibit a high surface area, a high mesopore content, and have excellent mechanical and electrochemical properties making them a good material to use inter alia as conductive additives or conductive coatings (see e.g. paragraph [0041] of Cericola). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the carbon particles in the electrode active material layers of Tanaka such that they include carbon particles wherein in a particle size distribution of the carbon particles, D10 is 0.70 µm, and D90 is 2.5 µm as taught by Cericola et al. in orders to have carbon particles with excellent electrochemical properties making them a good conductive additive in the electrode active material layers as suggested by Cericola.
Regarding Claim 2, Tanaka in view of Cericola disclose the all-solid-state battery according to claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Tanaka further discloses that the carbon material may have shapes such as particles, chains, needles, and plates (see e.g. the paragraph beginning with “The shape of the carbon material constituting…” on page 3). Tanaka further discloses that the carbon particles have a major axis in the range of 0.03 μm to 10 μm and a minor axis in the range of 0.01 μm to 4.0 μm (see e.g. “Desirably, the minor axis is 0.01 μm to 4.0 μm, and the major axis is 0.03 μm to 10 μm.” in the paragraph beginning with “The shape of” on page 3).
Tanaka does not explicitly disclose that, in a case where a major axis of the carbon particle is indicated by a, and a minor axis is indicated by b, the ratio is 1.0 < a/b. However, Tanaka discloses carbon particles having shapes such as needles and plates. Particles having needle or plate shapes necessarily have a major axis and a minor axis where the major axis is longer than the minor axis. Therefore, for such particles, the ratio a/b is necessarily greater than 1.0.
Because Tanaka discloses carbon particles having needle or plate shapes, the limitation that the ratio 1.0 < a/b is an expected property satisfied by the carbon particles disclosed in Tanaka and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2112 and 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 6, Tanka in view of Cericola disclose the all-solid-state battery according to claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Both Tanaka and Cericola are silent as to the internal resistance of the all-solid-state battery being smaller than 1 x 107 Ω. Tanka in view of Cericola, however, discloses an all-solid-state battery that has no compositional or structural distinction to the all-solid-state battery claimed in the instant application. Therefore, the internal resistance of the all-solid-state battery being smaller than 1 x 107 Ω would be expected and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2112 (III) and MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding Claim 8, Tanka in view of Cericola disclose the all-solid-state battery according to claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Tanaka further discloses that the positive active materials and then negative active materials each consist of Li3V2(PO4)3 (see e.g. "Li3V2(PO4)3 produced by the following method was used as the positive electrode active material and the negative electrode active material" in the (Preparation of positive electrode active material paste and negative electrode active material paste) section on page 12).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 pm 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, TONG GUO can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/J.J.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TONG GUO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights