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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that the limitations provide unexpected results. Applicant submits regarding table 2 and 3 of the pending application, examples 2, 7, 8, 12 demonstrate excellent internal resistance and discharge capacity with internal resistances of less than 1.0 x 107 Ohms and discharge capacity of more than 1.5 μAh. The examiner notes that table 2 of the pending application shows that example 12 provides a discharge capacity of 1.35 μAh, which is less than the 1.5 μAh or more as discussed.
In any case, Tanaka does disclose the same results as submitted by the applicant so the results are not unexpected. Tanaka discloses the objective of reducing interfacial resistance with the carbon material (see e.g., Tanaka; [0010], [0013], [0015]) which may therefore reduce the total internal resistance, and improving the discharge rate characteristics of the all-solid-state secondary battery (see e.g., Tanaka; [0010], [0013], [0015]). Furthermore, Tanaka discloses very high capacity discharge rates (μAh) in the examples (see e.g., Tanaka; table 1). Therefore, Tanaka discloses similar results as in the pending application.
Applicant submits that Tanaka discloses HS-100 as the carbon material, and further submits that the D90 of HS-100 seems much smaller than the claimed limit value of 4.5 μm. However, Tanaka discloses in its examples the use of KS-6 or HS-100 (see e.g., Tanaka; table 1). The material referred to in the final rejection is the use of KS-6, which Tanaka discloses as having an average particle size of 3.4 μm (see e.g., Tanaka; [0077], [0097]). Moreover, the HS-100 is disclosed as having an average particle size of 0.05 μm (see e.g., Tanaka; [0088]), not 0.5 μm as recited in the arguments. Tanaka does not explicitly disclose the D90 of the particles, so Azami is used to provide Tanaka with a D90 range. The modification of the particles of Tanaka does not change the carbon material to be much larger as the average particle size is not being modified, rather a D90 range is being provided to the particles disclosed by Tanaka because Tanaka does not explicitly disclose a range. Azami discloses a particle that is a graphite wherein the D90 is 4.7 μm (see e.g., Azami; table 1 regarding graphite A), which also has a similar D50 of 2.4 μm. Therefore, the modification is independent of having to remove the glass material or change the average diameter of the carbon material.
Applicant submits that Azami uses the graphite in combination with silicon materials. Applicant submits that the structure of Azami differs from the claimed battery. However, as described above, the combination of Azami is only for the D90 and D10 ranges for the particle size of the carbon particle disclosed by Tanaka. The application of the ranges is supported because Azami discloses that the particle is of similar graphite material, and has overlapping average particle size (D50) ranges (see e.g., Azami; [0020], table 1). Therefore, although Azami is structurally different from the battery of the claimed invention, Azami discloses that the particle has similar properties such that Azami may be combined with Tanaka.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1, 4, 7-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation D10 is 0.1 μm or more and D90 is 5 μm or less, and the claim also recites D10 is 0.25 or more and D90 is 4.5 μm or more and 5.0 μm or less which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 4 and 7-14 are rejected for at least depending on claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 7-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP-2018170189-A), and further in view of Dai (US-20190006701-A1) and Azami (US-20190097263-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka discloses an all-solid-state battery (see e.g., Tanaka; [0001]) comprising:
a positive electrode layer that has a positive electrode current collector layer and a positive electrode active material layer; a negative electrode layer that has a negative electrode current collector layer and a negative electrode active material layer; and a solid electrolyte layer that contains a solid electrolyte (see e.g., Tanaka; [0008]),
wherein the positive electrode active material layer is composed of positive active materials and the carbon particles, wherein the negative electrode active material layer is composed of negative active materials and the carbon particles (see e.g., Tanaka; [0008], regarding the positive and negative electrode comprising of active material layers, and wherein at least one of 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 contains a carbon material and glass; because of the term "at least", Tanaka discloses that there may be a configuration in which both the positive and negative electrodes have the carbon particles; indeed, Tanaka specifically discloses this configuration in [0018], [0027]-[0028]).
Tanaka discloses wherein a minor axis is 0.01 µm or more and 4.0 µm or less and the major axis is 0.03 µm or more and 10 µm or less (see e.g., Tanaka; [0053]); when length of a major axis of the carbon particles is a and a minor axis thereof is b, a ratio thereof falls within the range of 0.0075 < a/b < 1000, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.0 <a/b. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a minor axis “a” and major axis “b” such that a/b is 1.5 to 5.0 in order to improve rate discharge characteristics (see e.g., Tanaka; [0007]).
Tanaka discloses that carbon particles used in the positive electrode active material layer and negative electrode active material layer may have high electronic conductivity, high ratio of sp2 bonds, such as graphite, acetylene black, glassy carbon, carbon nanotubes, carbon fiber, graphene, and natural graphite, and particularly graphite, acetylene black, and glassy carbon due to glass adhesion and improved discharge characteristics (see e.g., Tanaka; [0052]). The included carbon material disclosed by Tanaka improves the overall discharge rate characteristics of the all-solid-state secondary battery (see e.g., Tanaka; [0010]). Tanaka does not explicitly disclose the measurement of the carbon particles to show a G-band full-width at half-maximum (G- FWHM) in a Raman spectrum is 40 (m⁻¹) or less. However, Dai discloses in fig. 12E a graph showing the G-band full-width at half- maximum (G-FWHM) in a Raman spectrum is 40 (m⁻¹) or less of a carbon material (see e.g., Dai; [0049], [0139], fig. 12E, regarding KS-6 carbon G-FWHM). The G-FWHM property of the carbon as disclosed by Dai may be applied to the carbon particles disclosed by Tanaka because the particle is graphite, which is the preferred material disclosed by Tanaka. Moreover, Tanaka similarly discloses the use of KS-6 (manufactured by TIMICAL Graphite & Carbon: average particle size 3.4 µm) (see e.g., Tanaka; [0076]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the carbon particles disclosed by Tanaka to have the property of a G-band full-width at half- maximum (G-FWHM) in a Raman spectrum is 40 (m⁻¹) or less as disclosed by Dai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a particle with a desired level of crystallinity, surface area, and defect density (see e.g., Dai; [0139]).
As mentioned above, Tanaka discloses the size of the carbon particles may be 0.01-4.0 μm in the short axis and 0.03-10 μm in the long axis (see e.g., Tanaka; [0054]). 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, or in a particle size distribution of the carbon particles, D10 is 0.25 um or more, and D90 is 4.5 m or more and 5.0 m or less. However, Azami discloses a carbon particle (see e.g., Azami; [0019]-[0020], regarding the first artificial graphite used as a conductive assisting agent) that is most preferably having a particle size distribution of D10 being 1 µm or more and D90 being 35 µm or less (see e.g., Azami; [0020]), and further provides examples, such as graphite conductive assisting agent A (see e.g., Azami; Table 1) with a D10 of 1.2 µm and a D90 of 4.7 µm. This overlaps with the claimed range of D10 being 0.1 µm or more and 5.0 µm or less, and overlaps with D10 of 0.25 μm or more and D90 of 4.5-5 μm. Azami is further applicable because Tanaka specifies that graphite is particularly preferable because they have good adhesion to glass and are highly effective in improving discharge rate (see e.g., Azami; [0052]), and Azami specifically chooses graphite as the conductive assisting agent. Furthermore, Azami teaches that the carbon particles have an average particle size (D50) of 2- 15 um for the first carbon particle (see e.g., Azami; [0020]), which is similar to the examples of average particle size of the carbon particle disclosed by Tanaka (see e.g., Tanaka; [0077], [0097], regarding examples of D50 of 3.4 μm). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carbon particle disclosed by Tanaka by providing a particle with D10 of 1.2 µm and a D90 of 4.7 µm disclosed by Azami. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve cycle characteristics (see e.g., Azami; [0006]), contain less metal impurities, and have low resistance with respect to electron conductivity (see e.g., Azami; [0014]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Tanaka teaches the all-solid-state battery according to claim 1. Tanaka discloses wherein the positive electrode active material layer and the negative electrode active material layer each contain 0.1 vol% to 50 vol% of the carbon particles (see e.g., Tanaka; [0013]) and provides examples (see e.g., Tanaka; [0076], [0085], [0090], [0096], [0097]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 (wt%) or more and 15.0 (wt%) or less of the carbon particles. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided carbon particles of 0.1-50 vol% that overlap with the claimed range of 0.5-15 wt% in in order to provide improved discharge rate characteristics (see e.g., Tanaka; [0008]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Tanaka teaches the all-solid state battery according to claim 1.
Tanaka discloses that carbon particles used in the positive electrode active material layer and negative electrode active material layer may have high electronic conductivity, high ratio of sp2 bonds, such as graphite, acetylene black, glassy carbon, carbon nanotubes, carbon fiber, graphene, and natural graphite, and particularly graphite, acetylene black, and glassy carbon due to glass adhesion and improved discharge characteristics (see e.g., Tanaka; [0052]). The included carbon material disclosed by Tanaka improves the overall discharge rate characteristics of the all-solid-state secondary battery (see e.g., Tanaka; [0010]). Tanaka does not explicitly disclose the measurement of the carbon particles to show a G-band full-width at half-maximum (G- FWHM) in a Raman spectrum is 24 (m⁻¹) or less. However, Dai discloses in fig. 12E a graph showing the G-band full-width at half- maximum (G-FWHM) in a Raman spectrum is 24 (m⁻¹) or less of a carbon material (see e.g., Dai; [0049], [0139], fig. 12E, regarding KS-6 carbon G-FWHM). The G-FWHM property of the carbon as disclosed by Dai may be applied to the carbon particles disclosed by Tanaka because the particle is graphite, which is the preferred material disclosed by Tanaka. Moreover, Tanaka similarly discloses the use of KS-6 (manufactured by TIMICAL Graphite & Carbon: average particle size 3.4 µm) (see e.g., Tanaka; [0076]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the carbon particles disclosed by Tanaka to have the property of a G-band full-width at half- maximum (G-FWHM) in a Raman spectrum is 24 (m⁻¹) or less as disclosed by Dai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a particle with a desired level of crystallinity, surface area, and defect density (see e.g., Dai; [0139]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Tanaka teaches the all-solid-state battery according to claim 1. Tanaka discloses wherein the solid electrolyte layer may include a compounds having NASICON structure (see e.g., Tanaka; [0043]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a NASICON solid electrolyte disclosed by Tanaka in order to improve discharge rate characteristics (see e.g., Tanaka; [0008]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Tanaka teaches the all-solid-state battery according to claim 8. Tanaka further discloses wherein the solid electrolyte layer includes Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3 (see e.g., Tanaka; [0043], [0097], regarding Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3 as a possible electrolyte and used in example 17). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3 as disclosed by Tanaka as the solid electrolyte in order to improve discharge rate characteristics (see e.g., Tanaka; [0008]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Tanaka teaches the all-solid-state battery according to claim 1. Tanaka discloses wherein the positive electrode active material is one of LiCoO2, LiMn2O4, and Li3V2(PO4)3 (see e.g., Tanaka; [0047]), which overlaps with the list of positive electrode active material as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, modified Tanaka teaches the all-solid-state battery according to claim 9. Tanaka discloses wherein the positive electrode active material is Li3V2(PO4)3 (see e.g., Tanaka; [0047], [0075], regarding example 1 use of Li3V2(PO4)3).
Regarding claim 12, modified Tanaka teaches the all-solid-state battery according to claim 11. Tanaka discloses wherein the positive electrode active material layer and the negative electrode active material layer each contain 0.1 vol% to 50 vol% of the carbon particles (see e.g., Tanaka; [0013]) and provides examples (see e.g., Tanaka; [0076], [0085], [0090], [0096], [0097]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 (wt%) or more and 15.0 (wt%) or less of the carbon particles. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided carbon particles of 0.1-50 vol% that overlap with the claimed range of 0.5-15 wt% in in order to provide improved discharge rate characteristics (see e.g., Tanaka; [0008]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Tanaka teaches the all-solid-state battery according to claim 11. Tanaka discloses wherein the positive electrode active material layer and the negative electrode active material layer each contain 0.1 vol% to 50 vol% of the carbon particles (see e.g., Tanaka; [0013]) and provides examples (see e.g., Tanaka; [0076], [0085], [0090], [0096], [0097]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 10 wt% or more and 15.0 wt% or less of the carbon particles. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided carbon particles of 0.1-50 vol% that overlap with the claimed range of 10-15 wt% in in order to provide improved discharge rate characteristics (see e.g., Tanaka; [0008]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Tanaka teaches the all-solid-state battery according to claim 10. Tanaka discloses wherein the negative electrode active material may be Li3V2(PO4)3, Li4Ti5O12, or oxides elements which may be an oxide of Ti and Fe (see e.g., Tanaka; [0047], see also [0075] regarding example 1 using Li3V2(PO4)3 in the negative electrode).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KEVIN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728