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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/30/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 03/30/2026, has been entered. Claims 1 and 10 are amended; claims 4-9, 12, and 18-19 stand as originally or previously presented; and claims 2-3, 11, 13-17, and 20 are canceled. Support for the amendments is found in the original filing, and there is no new matter.
Upon considered said amendments and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C.103 rejection set forth in Office Action mailed 01/05/2026 has been withdrawn. Amended and new grounds of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing to the originally cited art and newly found art are set forth below as necessitated by the claim amendments.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-10, 12, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Allie et al. (US 20170179472 A1, hereinafter Allie), as cited in IDS filed 12/12/2022, in view of Wohlmuth et al. (“High-Energy Mechanical Treatment Boosts Ion Transport in Nanocrystalline Li2B4O7, hereinafter Wohlmuth), as cited in IDS filed 03/03/2025.
Regarding Claims 1 and 7, Allie discloses the limitations regarding a composite body (Allie, solid electrolyte-electrode composite comprising a first inorganic solid particulate electrolyte having high conductivity, and a first low melting point solid inorganic electrolyte, [0019, 0039]) comprising:
a lithium compound (Allie, the composite electrode includes a high ionic conductivity solid particulate inorganic electrolyte to facilitate faster ionic transport through the body of the cathode, wherein the high ionic conductivity solid electrolytes includes LLZO (lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide (garnet, Li7La3Zr2O12)), [0058]) having a lithium ion conductivity of 1.0 x10-6 S/cm or more at 25°C (Allie, the term “high ionic conductivity” may be understood to refer to conductivities greater than about 5 x 10-5 S/cm, [0058]; the disclosed conductivity range of greater than about 5 x 10-5 S/cm falls within the claimed range of 1.0 x10-6 S/cm or more);
and lithium tetraborate (Allie, appropriate low melting point electrolytes include lithium tetraborate, or silicon doped lithium tetraborate, [0050-0051]), lithium tetraborate is doped with an element selected from the group consisting of S, Ge, and F (Allie, the low melting point solid inorganic electrolyte preferably comprises a doped metal oxide containing at least one of boron and carbon; the most preferred metal oxide is lithium oxide. The metal oxide may be doped with an element such as, without limitation, silicon, fluorine, germanium, or sulfur, [0050]; the Examiner notes that sulfur, germanium, and fluorine are substitutions for silicon).
Allie is silent regarding the lithium tetraborate that satisfies the following requirement 1,
a proportion of a full width at half maximum of a peak in which a frequency shift appears in a range of -100 to +100 ppm in a spectrum obtained in a case where a solid 7Li-NMR measurement of the lithium tetraborate is carried out at 120°C is 70% or less with respect to a full width at half maximum of a peak in which a frequency shift appears in a range of -100 to +100 ppm in a spectrum obtained in a case where the solid 7Li-NMR measurement of the lithium tetraborate is carried out at 20°C,
the requirement 1: in a reduced two-body distribution function G(r) obtained from an X-ray total scattering measurement of the lithium tetraborate, a first peak in which a peak top is located in a range where r is 1.43 ± 0.2 Å and a second peak in which a peak top is located in a range where r is 2.40 ± 0.2 Å are present, G(r) of the peak top of the first peak and G(r) of the peak top of the second peak indicate more than 1.0, and an absolute value of G(r) is less than 1.0 in a range where r is more than 5 Å and 10 Å or less,
the lithium tetraborate has a bulk elastic modulus of 45 GPa or less (Claim 1), and
satisfies the following requirement 2 or requirement 3:
the requirement 2: a Raman intensity of the lithium tetraborate in the lithium ion conductor at 1,800 cm-1 is 1.60 times or more with respect to a Raman intensity at 1,000 cm-1 in a Raman spectrum,
the requirement 3: a coefficient of determination obtained by carrying out a linear regression analysis according to a least squares method in a wave number range of 600 to 850 cm-1 of the lithium tetraborate in the lithium ion conductor is 0.8900 or more in the Raman spectrum (Claim 7).
Wohlmuth discloses that lithium tetraborate, Li2B4O7, in its single crystalline form is known as a very poor Li ion conductor, and high-energy ball-milling can be used on Li2B4O7 to prepare to prepare nanocrystalline defect-rich Li2B4O7 (Wohlmuth, Abstract).
Wohlmuth teaches that the sample became partly amorphous, and had an increase in conductivity by more than four orders of magnitude compared to the source material (Wohlmuth, Abstract). In addition, the formation of amorphous material governs overall ion transport (Wohlmuth, Page 1690, Paragraph starting with “In contrast, for the LiAlO2 system…”).
Allie and Wohlmuth are analogous to the current invention as they are all directed towards lithium tetraborate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use high-energy ball-milling, as taught by Wohlmuth, on the lithium tetraborate of Allie, in order to increase conductivity and to form amorphous material.
MPEP 2112.01 teaches that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With respect to the limitations the lithium tetraborate that satisfies the following requirement 1,
a proportion of a full width at half maximum of a peak in which a frequency shift appears in a range of -100 to +100 ppm in a spectrum obtained in a case where a solid 7Li-NMR measurement of the lithium tetraborate is carried out at 120°C is 70% or less with respect to a full width at half maximum of a peak in which a frequency shift appears in a range of -100 to +100 ppm in a spectrum obtained in a case where the solid 7Li-NMR measurement of the lithium tetraborate is carried out at 20°C,
the requirement 1: in a reduced two-body distribution function G(r) obtained from an X-ray total scattering measurement of the lithium tetraborate, a first peak in which a peak top is located in a range where r is 1.43 ± 0.2 Å and a second peak in which a peak top is located in a range where r is 2.40 ± 0.2 Å are present, G(r) of the peak top of the first peak and G(r) of the peak top of the second peak indicate more than 1.0, and an absolute value of G(r) is less than 1.0 in a range where r is more than 5 Å and 10 Å or less,
the lithium tetraborate has a bulk elastic modulus of 45 GPa or less (Claim 1), and
satisfies the following requirement 2 or requirement 3:
the requirement 2: a Raman intensity of the lithium tetraborate in the lithium ion conductor at 1,800 cm-1 is 1.60 times or more with respect to a Raman intensity at 1,000 cm-1 in a Raman spectrum,
the requirement 3: a coefficient of determination obtained by carrying out a linear regression analysis according to a least squares method in a wave number range of 600 to 850 cm-1 of the lithium tetraborate in the lithium ion conductor is 0.8900 or more in the Raman spectrum (Claim 7),
it is submitted that such limitations are simply measurements of, and thus descriptions of, inherent properties of the recited amorphous doped lithium tetraborate.
Applicant discloses that the G(r), NMR, and bulk elastic modulus values are characteristics of the short-range order of amorphous lithium tetraborate (see Instant Specification [0136-0138]), and a method of subjecting a lithium tetraborate crystal to a mechanical milling treatment can be mentioned from the viewpoint that the second lithium compound can be produced with high productivity (see Instant Specification [0056])
Accordingly, it is reasonably interpreted that the milling method and composition of the lithium tetraborate is critical to the recited bulk elastic modulus, x-ray, and NMR measurements such that it would fulfil the recited measurements and necessarily possess the inherent properties.
Modified Allie discloses high-energy ball-milling can be used on Li2B4O7 to prepare to prepare nanocrystalline defect-rich Li2B4O7 (Wohlmuth, Abstract), and lithium tetraborate may be doped with an element such as, without limitation, silicon, fluorine, germanium, or sulfur (Allie, [0050]).
It is submitted that the lithium tetraborate is prepared by modified Allie is substantially similar to the instant lithium tetraborate such that the lithium tetraborate of modified Allie would reasonably possess the same properties and exhibit the same results.
Therefore, based upon such substantial similarities, it appears reasonable that the lithium tetraborate of modified Allie would inherently possess physical properties, e.g. a reduced two-body distribution function G(r), such that the lithium tetraborate of modified Allie would necessarily fulfill the recited limitations, i.e.
a proportion of a full width at half maximum of a peak in which a frequency shift appears in a range of -100 to +100 ppm in a spectrum obtained in a case where a solid 7Li-NMR measurement of the lithium tetraborate is carried out at 120°C is 70% or less with respect to a full width at half maximum of a peak in which a frequency shift appears in a range of -100 to +100 ppm in a spectrum obtained in a case where the solid 7Li-NMR measurement of the lithium tetraborate is carried out at 20°C,
the requirement 1: in a reduced two-body distribution function G(r) obtained from an X-ray total scattering measurement of the lithium tetraborate, a first peak in which a peak top is located in a range where r is 1.43 ± 0.2 Å and a second peak in which a peak top is located in a range where r is 2.40 ± 0.2 Å are present, G(r) of the peak top of the first peak and G(r) of the peak top of the second peak indicate more than 1.0, and an absolute value of G(r) is less than 1.0 in a range where r is more than 5 Å and 10 Å or less,
the lithium tetraborate has a bulk elastic modulus of 45 GPa or less (Claim 1), and
satisfies the following requirement 2 or requirement 3:
the requirement 2: a Raman intensity of the lithium tetraborate in the lithium ion conductor at 1,800 cm-1 is 1.60 times or more with respect to a Raman intensity at 1,000 cm-1 in a Raman spectrum,
the requirement 3: a coefficient of determination obtained by carrying out a linear regression analysis according to a least squares method in a wave number range of 600 to 850 cm-1 of the lithium tetraborate in the lithium ion conductor is 0.8900 or more in the Raman spectrum (Claim 7).
Assuming, arguendo, that such properties are not inherent, it is submitted that before the effective filing date of the current invention, one having ordinary skill in the art would find such properties obvious over the instant lithium tetraborate. The skilled artisan would reasonably find that the disclosed lithium tetraborate is so similar to the instant lithium tetraborate, that the prior art lithium tetraborate would also exhibit the following requirement 1,
a proportion of a full width at half maximum of a peak in which a frequency shift appears in a range of -100 to +100 ppm in a spectrum obtained in a case where a solid 7Li-NMR measurement of the lithium tetraborate is carried out at 120°C is 70% or less with respect to a full width at half maximum of a peak in which a frequency shift appears in a range of -100 to +100 ppm in a spectrum obtained in a case where the solid 7Li-NMR measurement of the lithium tetraborate is carried out at 20°C,
the requirement 1: in a reduced two-body distribution function G(r) obtained from an X-ray total scattering measurement of the lithium tetraborate, a first peak in which a peak top is located in a range where r is 1.43 ± 0.2 Å and a second peak in which a peak top is located in a range where r is 2.40 ± 0.2 Å are present, G(r) of the peak top of the first peak and G(r) of the peak top of the second peak indicate more than 1.0, and an absolute value of G(r) is less than 1.0 in a range where r is more than 5 Å and 10 Å or less,
the lithium tetraborate has a bulk elastic modulus of 45 GPa or less (Claim 1), and
satisfies the following requirement 2 or requirement 3:
the requirement 2: a Raman intensity of the lithium tetraborate in the lithium ion conductor at 1,800 cm-1 is 1.60 times or more with respect to a Raman intensity at 1,000 cm-1 in a Raman spectrum,
the requirement 3: a coefficient of determination obtained by carrying out a linear regression analysis according to a least squares method in a wave number range of 600 to 850 cm-1 of the lithium tetraborate in the lithium ion conductor is 0.8900 or more in the Raman spectrum (Claim 7).
MPEP 2113 (III) states:
"[T]he lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith." In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). Office personnel should note that reliance on the alternative grounds of 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 does not eliminate the need to explain both the anticipation and obviousness aspects of the rejections.”
The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product and the method of producing the prior art product do not necessarily result in claimed product.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Allie discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Allie discloses the limitations regarding a composite body (Allie, solid electrolyte-electrode composite comprising a first inorganic solid particulate electrolyte having high conductivity, and a first low melting point solid inorganic electrolyte, [0019, 0039]), wherein
the lithium compound is a lithium-containing oxide (Allie, the composite electrode includes a high ionic conductivity solid particulate inorganic electrolyte to facilitate faster ionic transport through the body of the cathode, wherein the high ionic conductivity solid electrolytes include LLZO (lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide (garnet, Li7La3Zr2O12)), [0058]).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Allie discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Allie discloses the limitations regarding a composite body (Allie, solid electrolyte-electrode composite comprising a first inorganic solid particulate electrolyte having high conductivity, and a first low melting point solid inorganic electrolyte, [0019, 0039]), wherein
the lithium compound includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a lithium compound having a garnet-type structure or a garnet-type similar structure containing at least Li, La, Zr, and O (Allie, the composite electrode includes a high ionic conductivity solid particulate inorganic electrolyte to facilitate faster ionic transport through the body of the cathode, wherein the high ionic conductivity solid electrolytes includes LLZO (lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide (garnet, Li7La3Zr2O12)), [0058]).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Allie discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Allie discloses the limitations regarding a lithium ion conductor formed (Allie, the composite electrode may be constructed as a standalone wafer or pellet, or may be fabricated as a thin coating applied to a substrate, and the composite electrode includes a high ionic conductivity solid particulate inorganic electrolyte, [0057, 0062]) of the composite body (Allie, the solid electrolyte-electrode composite, [0039])
Regarding Claim 8, modified Allie discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Allie discloses the limitations regarding an all-solid state lithium ion secondary battery (Allie, solid state battery, [0087]) comprising, in the following order:
a positive electrode active material layer; a solid electrolyte layer; and a negative electrode active material layer (Allie, solid state cell battery includes cathode 6, electrolyte separator 4, and anode layer 2, Figure 7, [0014, 0091]),
wherein at least one of the positive electrode active material layer, the solid electrolyte layer, or the negative electrode active material layer contains the lithium ion conductor (Allie, the composite electrode may be the composite cathode, [0087]).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Allie discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Allie discloses the limitations regarding an electrode sheet for an all-solid state lithium ion secondary battery comprising the lithium ion conductor (Allie, form the electrode or composite electrode directly onto the current collector or other substrate, [0071]).
Regarding Claims 10 and 12, modified Allie discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Allie discloses the limitations regarding lithium tetraborate (Allie, the first low melting point solid inorganic electrolyte is at least one material selected from the group consisting of silicon doped lithium tetraborate, [0050-0051]).
MPEP 2112.01 teaches that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With respect to the limitations the lithium tetraborate that satisfies the following requirement 1,
a proportion of a full width at half maximum of a peak in which a frequency shift appears in a range of -100 to +100 ppm in a spectrum obtained in a case where a solid 7Li-NMR measurement of the lithium tetraborate is carried out at 120°C is 70% or less with respect to a full width at half maximum of a peak in which a frequency shift appears in a range of -100 to +100 ppm in a spectrum obtained in a case where the solid 7Li-NMR measurement of the lithium tetraborate is carried out at 20°C,
the requirement 1: in a reduced two-body distribution function G(r) obtained from an X-ray total scattering measurement of the lithium tetraborate, a first peak in which a peak top is located in a range where r is 1.43 ± 0.2 Å and a second peak in which a peak top is located in a range where r is 2.40 ± 0.2 Å are present, G(r) of the peak top of the first peak and G(r) of the peak top of the second peak indicate more than 1.0, and an absolute value of G(r) is less than 1.0 in a range where r is more than 5 Å and 10 Å or less,
the lithium tetraborate has a bulk elastic modulus of 45 GPa or less (Claim 10), and
a coefficient of determination obtained by carrying out a linear regression analysis according to a least squares method in a wave number range of 600 to 850 cm-1 is 0.9400 or more in a Raman spectrum (Claim 12).
it is submitted that such limitations are simply measurements of, and thus descriptions of, inherent properties of the recited amorphous doped lithium tetraborate.
Applicant discloses that the G(r), NMR, and bulk elastic modulus values are characteristics of the short-range order of amorphous lithium tetraborate (see Instant Specification [0136-0138]), and a method of subjecting a lithium tetraborate crystal to a mechanical milling treatment can be mentioned from the viewpoint that the second lithium compound can be produced with high productivity (see Instant Specification [0056])
Accordingly, it is reasonably interpreted that the milling method and composition of the lithium tetraborate is critical to the recited bulk elastic modulus, x-ray, and NMR measurements such that it would fulfil the recited measurements and necessarily possess the inherent properties.
Modified Allie discloses high-energy ball-milling can be used on Li2B4O7 to prepare to prepare nanocrystalline defect-rich Li2B4O7 (Wohlmuth, Abstract), and lithium tetraborate may be doped with an element such as, without limitation, silicon, fluorine, germanium, or sulfur (Allie, [0050]).
It is submitted that the lithium tetraborate is prepared by modified Allie is substantially similar to the instant lithium tetraborate such that the lithium tetraborate of modified Allie would reasonably possess the same properties and exhibit the same results.
Therefore, based upon such substantial similarities, it appears reasonable that the lithium tetraborate of modified Allie would inherently possess physical properties, e.g. a reduced two-body distribution function G(r), such that the lithium tetraborate of modified Allie would necessarily fulfill the recited limitations, i.e.
a proportion of a full width at half maximum of a peak in which a frequency shift appears in a range of -100 to +100 ppm in a spectrum obtained in a case where a solid 7Li-NMR measurement of the lithium tetraborate is carried out at 120°C is 70% or less with respect to a full width at half maximum of a peak in which a frequency shift appears in a range of -100 to +100 ppm in a spectrum obtained in a case where the solid 7Li-NMR measurement of the lithium tetraborate is carried out at 20°C,
the requirement 1: in a reduced two-body distribution function G(r) obtained from an X-ray total scattering measurement of the lithium tetraborate, a first peak in which a peak top is located in a range where r is 1.43 ± 0.2 Å and a second peak in which a peak top is located in a range where r is 2.40 ± 0.2 Å are present, G(r) of the peak top of the first peak and G(r) of the peak top of the second peak indicate more than 1.0, and an absolute value of G(r) is less than 1.0 in a range where r is more than 5 Å and 10 Å or less, and
the lithium tetraborate has a bulk elastic modulus of 45 GPa or less (Claim 10), and
a coefficient of determination obtained by carrying out a linear regression analysis according to a least squares method in a wave number range of 600 to 850 cm-1 is 0.9400 or more in a Raman spectrum (Claim 12).
Assuming, arguendo, that such properties are not inherent, it is submitted that before the effective filing date of the current invention, one having ordinary skill in the art would find such properties obvious over the instant lithium tetraborate. The skilled artisan would reasonably find that the disclosed lithium tetraborate is so similar to the instant lithium tetraborate, that the prior art lithium tetraborate would also exhibit the following requirement 1,
a proportion of a full width at half maximum of a peak in which a frequency shift appears in a range of -100 to +100 ppm in a spectrum obtained in a case where a solid 7Li-NMR measurement of the lithium tetraborate is carried out at 120°C is 70% or less with respect to a full width at half maximum of a peak in which a frequency shift appears in a range of -100 to +100 ppm in a spectrum obtained in a case where the solid 7Li-NMR measurement of the lithium tetraborate is carried out at 20°C,
the requirement 1: in a reduced two-body distribution function G(r) obtained from an X-ray total scattering measurement of the lithium tetraborate, a first peak in which a peak top is located in a range where r is 1.43 ± 0.2 Å and a second peak in which a peak top is located in a range where r is 2.40 ± 0.2 Å are present, G(r) of the peak top of the first peak and G(r) of the peak top of the second peak indicate more than 1.0, and an absolute value of G(r) is less than 1.0 in a range where r is more than 5 Å and 10 Å or less,
the lithium tetraborate has a bulk elastic modulus of 45 GPa or less (Claim 10), and
a coefficient of determination obtained by carrying out a linear regression analysis according to a least squares method in a wave number range of 600 to 850 cm-1 is 0.9400 or more in a Raman spectrum (Claim 12).
MPEP 2113 (III) states:
"[T]he lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith." In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). Office personnel should note that reliance on the alternative grounds of 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 does not eliminate the need to explain both the anticipation and obviousness aspects of the rejections.”
The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product and the method of producing the prior art product do not necessarily result in claimed product.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Allie discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Allie discloses the limitations regarding an all-solid state lithium ion secondary battery (Allie, solid state battery, [0087]) comprising, in the following order:
a positive electrode active material layer; a solid electrolyte layer; and a negative electrode active material layer (Allie, solid state cell battery includes cathode 6, electrolyte separator 4, and anode layer 2, Figure 7, [0014, 0091]),
wherein at least one of the positive electrode active material layer, the solid electrolyte layer, or the negative electrode active material layer contains the lithium ion conductor (Allie, the composite electrode may be the composite cathode, [0087]).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Allie discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Allie discloses the limitations regarding an electrode sheet for an all-solid state lithium ion secondary battery comprising the lithium ion conductor (Allie, form the electrode or composite electrode directly onto the current collector or other substrate, [0071]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages , filed 03/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 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 Allie et al. (US 20170179472 A1, hereinafter Allie), in view of Wohlmuth et al. (“High-Energy Mechanical Treatment Boosts Ion Transport in Nanocrystalline Li2B4O7, hereinafter Wohlmuth), as noted above.
Applicant argues that Allie explicitly teaches using lithium tetraborate as a "sintering aid" to form a dense electrode structure via high-temperature treatment, typically between 700 °C and 900 °C.
The Examiner respectfully submits Allie does not use lithium tetraborate as a sintering aid, and instead uses Li3BO3 – Li2CO3 as a sintering aid (Allie, [0109]). Further, in Allie, lithium tetraborate is used as a low melting point solid inorganic electrolyte (Allie, [0050-0051]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:50 - 7:50 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, NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/K.N./
Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights