Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 17/987,974

Active Material, Positive Electrode Mixture Using Same, And Solid-State Battery

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 16, 2022
Examiner
AMPONSAH, OSEI K
Art Unit
1752
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Mitsui Mining & Smelting Co. Ltd.
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
488 granted / 680 resolved
+6.8% vs TC avg
Strong +34% interview lift
Without
With
+34.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
68 currently pending
Career history
748
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
66.1%
+26.1% vs TC avg
§102
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
§112
9.1%
-30.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 680 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01-30-2026 has been entered. 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(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0056450 hereinafter Yoshikawa in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0087270 hereinafter Yoshida. Regarding Claim 1, Yoshikawa teaches a positive electrode active material for a battery (see figure 2), the positive electrode active material comprising: a spinel-type complex oxide [LiMn2-xMxO4, wherein x is within a range of 0.22≤x≤0.7]active material (paragraph 9), wherein the active material has a particle diameter d10 within a range of 0.5 to 3 µm and a mode diameter Dmo within a range of 0.15 to 0.4 µm (paragraphs 9, 53). Yoshikawa further teaches that a ratio of an absolute value of a difference between a mode diameter of the active material and a d10 of the active material to the mode diameter in percentage terms, (|mode diameter-d10|/mode diameter) x 100, is (|0.4-0.5|/0.4) = 25% (see paragraphs 9 and 53 as described above). Yoshikawa does not specifically disclose that the active material is for use in a solid-state battery and wherein the active material comprises a core particle and a coating layer on a surface of the core particle. However, Yoshida teaches an active material for a solid-state battery (paragraph 43), the active material comprises a spinel-type complex oxide [LixMyOz] active material (paragraphs 27-29) and a coating layer formed on the surface of the spinel-type complex oxide active material (paragraphs 31-32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such coated spinel-type complex oxide active material in the positive electrode (cathode) of the battery before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Yoshida discloses that the contact area of the coated active material with a solid electrolyte material increases to allow reaction resistance to be inhibited (paragraph 24). MPEP § 2112.01 states 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) Because the active material recited in the combination of Yoshikawa and Yoshida is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions (i.e., peaks obtained through measurement of an X-ray absorption fine structure) are presumed to be inherent. Examiner submits that Applicant’s particle size distribution is by volume (see summary of the Applicant specification). Regarding Claim 2, the combination teaches an active material for a solid-state battery (paragraph 43), the active material comprises a spinel-type complex oxide [LixMyOz] active material and a coating layer formed on the surface of the spinel-type complex oxide active material, wherein the ratio of an absolute value of a difference between a mode diameter of the active material and a d10 of the active material to the mode diameter in percentage terms, (|mode diameter-d10|/mode diameter) x 100, is (|0.4-0.5|/0.4) = 25% (see Yoshikawa and Yoshida described above). Because the active material recited in the combination of Yoshikawa and Yoshida is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01 shown above). Regarding Claim 3, the combination teaches an active material for a solid-state battery (paragraph 43), the active material comprises a spinel-type complex oxide [LixMyOz] active material and a coating layer formed on the surface of the spinel-type complex oxide active material, wherein the active material has a particle diameter d50 within a range of 2 to 5 µm and a mode diameter Dmo within a range of 0.15 to 0.4 µm (paragraphs 13, 53), and the ratio of an absolute value of a difference between a mode diameter of the active material and a d50 of the active material to the mode diameter in percentage terms, (|mode diameter-d50|/mode diameter) x 100, is in the range of 0%≤ratio≤25%. The combination further teaches large and small average primary particle sizes for the active material (see Yoshikawa and Yoshida described above). Regarding Claims 4-7, the combination teaches a solid-state battery comprising a positive electrode layer, a negative electrode layer, and a solid electrolyte layer, wherein the positive electrode layer contains the active material described above, wherein the positive electrode comprises the active material and a solid electrolyte, and wherein the solid electrolyte having a crystal phase with an argyrodite-type structure contains elemental lithium (Li), elemental phosphorus (P), and elemental sulfur (S), and has lithium ion conductivity (see the combination of Yoshikawa and Yoshida described above). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSEI K AMPONSAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 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, 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. /OSEI K AMPONSAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 16, 2022
Application Filed
May 18, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 29, 2024
Response Filed
Nov 29, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 25, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 31, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 30, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 02, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12586819
Non-Aqueous Electrolyte and Lithium Secondary Battery Including the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580223
STABILIZED SOLID GARNET ELECTROLYTE AND METHODS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573615
All-Solid-State Battery and Method of Manufacturing the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12573717
MICROPOROUS MEMBRANES, SEPARATORS, LITHIUM BATTERIES, AND RELATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12567648
EXPLOSIVE ENVIRONMENT NEUTRALIZATION IN CHEMICAL ENERGY STORAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+34.3%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 680 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month