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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are currently pending
Claims 1, 5, and 8 are amended
Claims 5-7 have been previously withdrawn
Status of Amendments
The amendment filed 12 May 2026 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Status of Objections and Rejections of the Office Action from 20 February 2026
The 103 rejections over Yawata and over Yawata in view of Osada are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. However, a new grounds of rejection over Kushida has been set forth, as necessitated by applicant’s amendment.
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 1-4 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kushida et al. (WO 2021039468 A1 using US 20220181682 A1 as the English translation), hereinafter Kushida.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 8-11, Kushida teaches an all-solid-state battery 10 (Fig. 1), as required by claim 8, comprising:
a positive electrode layer 4;
a negative electrode layer 2; and
a solid electrolyte layer 3 located between the positive electrode layer 4 and the negative electrode layer 2, as seen in Fig. 1, wherein
the negative electrode layer 2, as required by claims 1 and 8, includes lithium titanate, in this case Li4Ti5O12 [0358], as is also required by claim 3, a sulfide solid electrolyte [0063], and a binder comprising a rubber, in this case a low adsorption binder comprising a polymeric chain of carbon-carbon double bond [0115] like a hydrocarbon-based polymer [0120] like styrene-butadiene rubber [0209], as is also required by claims 2 and 9, wherein the binder is the only binder in the negative electrode layer [0122].
Kushida is silent as to an amount A of the rubber binder adsorbed on the lithium titanate to a total content B of the rubber binder in the negative electrode layer being specifically 1.35% or less, as required by claim 1, and more than 0%, as further required by claim 10, or more than 0.5%, as further required by claim 11. However, Kushida teaches an adsorption rate of the low adsorption binder with respect to the active material having a range of 0.1-10% [0112]. This overlaps with the claimed ratio ranges. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select an adsorption rate in the claimed range in order to properly balance the binding property with the dispersion stability and handleability [0103]. Further, 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).
Regarding claim 4, Kushida teaches the negative electrode according to claim 1, wherein
a proportion of the binder in the negative electrode layer is 0.01% to 10.0% by mass [0291],
a proportion of the lithium titanate in the negative electrode layer is 10% to 90% by mass [0369], and
a proportion of the sulfide solid electrolyte in the negative electrode layer is 50% to 99.9% by mass [0090].
Examiner notes that these ranges are in terms of % by mass rather than the claimed % by volume. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the % by volume ranges corresponding to each % by mass proportion to overlap with the claimed ranges of 1% by volume or more and 20% by volume or less for the binder, 20% by volume or more and 80% by volume or less for the lithium titanate, and 15% by volume or more and 75% by volume or less for the sulfide solid electrolyte. For example, given the densities for each component disclosed in the instant specification, 3.5 g/cm3 for Li4Ti5O12, 0.9 g/cm3 for SBR, and 2 g/cm3 for glass ceramic sulfide solid electrolyte [instant 0079], a combination of 5 g SBR binder, 45 g Li4Ti5O12, and 50 g glass ceramic sulfide solid electrolyte, equal to 5%, 45%, and 50% by mass respectively, would be equivalent to 5.56 cm3 SBR binder, 12.86 cm3 Li4Ti5O12, and 25 cm3 glass ceramic sulfide solid electrolyte. This is a total of 43.41 cm3 with volume proportions of about 12.8% binder by volume, 29.67% lithium titanate by volume, and 57.6% sulfide solid electrolyte by volume, which lie within the claimed ranges. 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN KENWOOD VAN KIRK whose telephone number is (703)756-4717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, 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.
/DUSTIN VAN KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights