DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The amendment filed 11/17/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11-16, and 21-26 remain pending. Claims 11-16 and 21-26 are withdrawn.
The previous objection to the specification and claim 1 has been withdrawn. The 35 USC 112 rejection of claim 2 is withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendment the claim.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 2, and 5-8 under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The cite prior art does not teach the remain species lithium-rich solid electrolyte and a lithium-separated silicon oxide. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Makino et al. (US 2017/0301947).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities: “Lithium” should not be capitalized since lithium is not a proper noun. Appropriate correction is required.
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 6 is 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. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the positive active material" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Makino et al. (US 2017/0301947).
Regarding claim 1, Makino discloses an all-solid state secondary battery comprising:
a positive electrode (para 0509) including:
LCO, lithium cobalt oxide (positive active material); and
LLZ, Li7La3Zr2O12 (lithium-rich solid electrolyte) (Table 6: U1).
The components were continuously mixed together at a temperature of 25° C and a rotation speed of 100 rpm for 15 minutes, thereby manufacturing a composition for a positive electrode (U-1) (para 0510).
Regarding claim 2, the above composition would be capable of pulling away lithium-ions under the recited extreme conditions given the composition above.
Regarding claim 5, Makino discloses an average particle size of 5.06 µm (Note in Table 6).
Regarding claim 6, Makino discloses the lithium-rich solid electrolyte used in an amount of 2.7 parts by mass (Table 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino et al. (US 2017/0301947) in view of Yushin et al. (US 2018/0205111).
Regarding claim 7, Makino teaches the positive active material may include LiNi0.85Co0.01Al0.05O2 (para 0419).
Makino does not further teach a positive electrode area capacity larger than or equal to 4 mAh/cm2.
Yushin, directed to electrolytes for metal-ion cells, teaches electrode capacities of 2-4 mAh/cm2 (moderate) and 4-10 mAh/cm2 (high) (para 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a higher area capacity because it is advantageous in certain applications for increasing cell energy density (e.g., electric vehicle batteries and other high energy applications) and reducing cell manufacturing costs (para 0040).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino et al. (US 2017/0301947).
Regarding claim 8, Makino teaches negative electrode active materials including silicon oxide (para 0439).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select silicon oxide from the list of negative electrode active materials.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Hoshina et al. (US 2020/0303730) also teaches a positive electrode including lithium transition metal oxides (e.g., NCM) and solid electrolyte, Li7La3Zr2O12 (Table 1).
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 CARLOS BARCENA whose telephone number is (571)270-5780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-5 pm.
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.
/CARLOS BARCENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights