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 .
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109256555 A, of which a complete copy of the Chinese document with an English abstract was provided with the Information Disclosure Statement dated January 25, 2023, and with a machine translation provided with the Office Action mailed July 28, 2025.
Regarding independent claim 1, CN ‘555 discloses an active material and a method for its production (abstract; pages 2-4 of translation under the heading “Invention conawning”; Examples 1 and 2; and claims 1-4 and 7), in which the active material and method of production includes the following features/steps:
a first step of preparing a compound containing lithium (Li), sulfur (S), and an element M, and containing a crystalline phase having an argyrodite crystal structure, wherein M comprises phosphorus (P), as disclosed in the three chemical formulas at the top of page 3 of the translation, as well as in claim 3 and in Examples 1 and 2; and
a second step of mixing the compound and a conductive material to composite the compound with the conductive material (see the middle of page 3 through page 4 above the heading “Description” of the translation; and claim 4),
wherein the active material and a sulfide solid electrolyte are used to form an electrode mixture for a battery that includes a positive electrode layer containing the active material, a negative electrode layer, and a solid electrolyte layer located between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer (see abstract; pages 2-4 of translation; Examples 1 and 2; and claims 3 and 4).
Although the second step of mixing the compound and the conductive material includes application of mechanical energy, CN ‘555 does not explicitly disclose applying a centrifugal acceleration is 10 G or more to composite the compound with the conductive material. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that since CN ‘555 uses a ball mill to conduct high-speed rotational (centrifugal) movement of 200-400 rpm (see the 5th paragraph below the three chemical formulas on page 3 of the translation), obtaining a desired centrifugal acceleration would be conducted by routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success. Since CN ‘555 discloses the step of mixing the compound and a conductive material to composite the compound with the conductive material (see the middle of page 3 through page 4 above the heading “Description” of the translation; and claim 4), one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the ball mill speed would be optimized to obtain as high as a centrifugal acceleration as possible, in which 10 G would be a desirable value which would be almost within reach (if not met) by CN ‘555, in order to provide high output energy density, good cycle stability, and high capacity retention rate to the active material (see abstract of CN ‘555). To the extent that the centrifugal acceleration would be at a value below 10 G, it is noted that the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75 (CCPA 1946). See MPEP 2144.05(I)(¶2). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Although the term “argyrodite” is not explicitly disclosed in CN ‘555, it is noted that the compound containing lithium (Li), sulfur (S), and an element M would form an “argyrodite” crystal structure after the steps of mixing and heat-treating, as evidenced in at least the abstract and in paragraphs [0019]-[0029] of Seong et al. (US 2019/0198917), cited in the Information Disclosure Statement dated January 25, 2023. In this instance, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as inherent and/or obvious that the elements lithium (Li), sulfur (S), and an element M (phosphorus (P)), as disclosed in CN ‘555, would form an “argyrodite” crystal structure that is operable to improve electrochemical stability of sulfide-based solid electrolytes, as evidenced by paragraphs [0011] and [0012] of Seong et al. (US ‘917), in addition to providing high output energy density, good cycle stability, and high capacity retention rate (see abstract of CN ‘555).
Regarding claim 2, CN ‘555 discloses that the second step of mixing includes applying mechanical energy to the compound and the conductive material to composite the compound with the conductive material using a ball mill, thus resulting in an inseparably dispersed mixture (see the middle of page 3 through page 4 above the heading “Description” of the translation; and claim 4). Although CN ‘555 discloses using a ball mill (having a ball mill speed of 200-400 rpm – see the 5th paragraph below the three chemical formulas on page 3 of the translation) rather than a planetary ball mill, as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that selection between a (traditional) ball mill and a planetary ball mill would have been obvious to try with a finite number of predictable solutions under a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, although CN ‘555 does not explicitly disclose that the second step of mixing is performed in such a manner that a half width of a peak at a position 2θ=29.62±1.0° is 0.4 or more in an X-ray diffraction pattern measured using CuKα1 rays, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as inherent and/or obvious that the elements disclosed in CN ‘555 would form an argyrodite crystal structure that is operable to improve electrochemical stability of sulfide-based solid electrolytes and includes an X-ray diffraction pattern having multiple peaks, including a peak at a position 2θ=30.5±1.0° that overlaps with the range of the peak in applicant’s claims 3 and 12, as evidenced by paragraphs [0011], [0012], and [0019] of Seong et al. (US ‘917), in addition to providing high output energy density, good cycle stability, and high capacity retention rate (see abstract of CN ‘555). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claim 4, CN ‘555 discloses that the second step of mixing includes mixing 1 to 50 parts by mass of the conductive material with 100 parts by mass of the compound, which widely overlaps the ratio ranges of (20-90 : 80-10), as disclosed in claim 2 and in the last full paragraph on page 2 of the translation).
Regarding claim 5, although CN ‘555 does not explicitly disclose that the compound has a volume cumulative particle size D50 of from 0.1 µm to 20 µm at 50% cumulative volume as measured by laser diffraction scattering particle size distribution analysis, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as inherent and/or obvious that the compound of CN ‘555 would include the same elements to form an argyrodite crystal structure that is operable to improve electrochemical stability of sulfide-based solid electrolytes and includes substantially overlapping volume cumulative particle size D50 of from the broad range of 0.1 µm to 20 µm at 50% cumulative volume, as measured by laser diffraction scattering particle size distribution analysis, in order to provide high output energy density, good cycle stability, and high capacity retention rate (see abstract of CN ‘555). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claim 6, CN ‘555 discloses that the compound further contains halogen (X) element, including chlorine (Cl), bromine (Br), and iodine (I), as disclosed in the three chemical formulas at the top of page 3 of the translation, as well as in claim 3 and in Examples 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 7, CN ‘555 discloses that the compound is represented by a composition formula LiaMSbXc, wherein M represents phosphorus (P), and X represents at least one of chlorine (Cl), bromine (Br), and iodine (I), wherein a is from 3 to 9, b is from 3.5 to 6, and c is from 0.1 to 3 (see the three chemical formulas at the top of page 3 of the translation, as well as in claim 3 and in Examples 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 8, CN ‘555 discloses that the conductive material is a carbon material, including the conductive carbon material carbon black (see the 2nd paragraph below the three chemical formulas at the top of page 3 of the translation; and claim 3).
Regarding independent claim 10, as well as claims 19 and 20 that include the active material in the limitations of claim 10, CN ‘555 discloses an active material (abstract; pages 2-4 of translation under the heading “Invention conawning”; Examples 1 and 2; and claims 1-4 and 7), in which the active material includes the following features:
preparing a compound containing lithium (Li), sulfur (S), and an element M, and containing a crystalline phase having an argyrodite crystal structure, wherein M comprises phosphorus (P), as disclosed in the three chemical formulas at the top of page 3 of the translation, as well as in claim 3 and in Examples 1 and 2; and
mixing the compound and a conductive material to composite the compound with the conductive material (see the middle of page 3 through page 4 above the heading “Description” of the translation; and claim 4),
wherein the active material comprises a main portion that contains the compound, and a conductive portion that contains the conductive material dispersed on a surface and/or in an interior of the main portion, and further wherein the active material and a sulfide solid electrolyte are used to form an electrode mixture for a battery that includes a positive electrode layer containing the active material, a negative electrode layer, and a solid electrolyte layer located between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer (see abstract; pages 2-4 of translation; Examples 1 and 2; and claims 3 and 4).
Regarding the new limitations after “the active material is:” (for which there are three options separated by “or”, such that only one of the three options would be used to meet the claim limitations), these new limitations are as follows:
“in a state in which it is seen that a constituent element of the compound and a constituent element of the conductive material are present so as to overlap each other when mapping the constituent element of the compound and the constituent element of the conductive material by observing the active material using a scanning electron microscope with an energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometer”;
“in a state in which it is seen that a constituent element of the compound and a constituent element of the conductive material are present so as to overlap each other on the surface or in the interior of the active material when observing a cross-section of a positive electrode layer of a battery produced using the active material; or
“in a state in which a presence or absence of C-S bonds using Raman spectroscopy or photoelectron spectroscopy in the active material is determined”.
In this instance, CN ‘555 discloses (on page 2 of the translation under the heading “Invention conawning”) that both a conductive carbon (C) material and a sulfide (S) in a composite anode material are present in the active material, such that (at least) photoelectron spectroscopy conducted on the active material would determine the presence or absence of C-S bonds (per the third of the three options above). Moreover, regardless of whether even a single one of the three options is conducted on the claimed “active material”, CN ‘555 discloses and/or suggests the features of the active material in independent claim 1 above (as also applicable to independent claim 10), and these three options are merely operations (processes) of conducting instrumental analysis to determine properties of a product (active material), and such operations would not provide patentable weight to the claimed product. Moreover, 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). See MPEP 2112.01(I).
Although the term “argyrodite” is not explicitly disclosed in CN ‘555, it is noted that the compound containing lithium (Li), sulfur (S), and an element M would form an “argyrodite” crystal structure after the steps of mixing and heat-treating, as evidenced in at least the abstract and in paragraphs [0019]-[0029] of Seong et al. (US 2019/0198917), cited in the Information Disclosure Statement dated January 25, 2023. In this instance, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as inherent and/or obvious that the elements lithium (Li), sulfur (S), and an element M (phosphorus (P)), as disclosed in CN ‘555, would form an “argyrodite” crystal structure that is operable to improve electrochemical stability of sulfide-based solid electrolytes, as evidenced by paragraphs [0011] and [0012] of Seong et al. (US ‘917), in addition to providing high output energy density, good cycle stability, and high capacity retention rate (see abstract of CN ‘555).
Regarding claim 11, CN ‘555 discloses that the second step of mixing includes applying mechanical energy to the compound and the conductive material to composite the compound with the conductive material, thus resulting in an inseparably dispersed mixture (see the middle of page 3 through page 4 above the heading “Description” of the translation; and claim 4).
Regarding claim 12, although CN ‘555 does not explicitly disclose that the second step of mixing is performed in such a manner that a half width of a peak at a position 2θ=29.62±1.0° is 0.4 or more in an X-ray diffraction pattern measured using CuKα1 rays, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as inherent and/or obvious that the elements disclosed in CN ‘555 would form an argyrodite crystal structure that is operable to improve electrochemical stability of sulfide-based solid electrolytes and includes an X-ray diffraction pattern having multiple peaks, including a peak at a position 2θ=30.5±1.0° that overlaps with the range of the peak in applicant’s claims 3 and 12, as evidenced by paragraphs [0011], [0012], and [0019] of Seong et al. (US ‘917), in addition to providing high output energy density, good cycle stability, and high capacity retention rate (see abstract of CN ‘555). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claim 13, CN ‘555 discloses that the second step of mixing includes mixing 1 to 50 parts by mass of the conductive material with 100 parts by mass of the compound, which widely overlaps the ratio ranges of (20-90 : 80-10), as disclosed in claim 2 and in the last full paragraph on page 2 of the translation).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, CN ‘555 discloses that the conductive material is a carbon material, including the conductive carbon material carbon black (see the 2nd paragraph below the three chemical formulas at the top of page 3 of the translation; and claim 3).
Regarding claim 17, CN ‘555 discloses that a content of the lithium element in the compound would be within the range from 10% to 25% (see Examples 1 and 2), and would also be subject to optimization with a reasonable expectation of success in order to obtain improvement on one or more of high output energy density, good cycle stability, and high capacity retention rate (see abstract of CN ‘555). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claim 18, CN ‘555 discloses that the compound further contains halogen (X) element, including chlorine (Cl), bromine (Br), and iodine (I), as disclosed in the three chemical formulas at the top of page 3 of the translation, as well as in claim 3 and in Examples 1 and 2.
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the applicant’s amendment and supplemental response received by the USPTO on November 24, 2025 and November 26, 2025, respectively. The amendment overcomes the prior objections to the specification and claim 17, as well as the prior 35 USC 112(b) rejections. The applicant has cancelled claims 9 and 16 to overcome one of the prior 35 USC 112(b) rejections. Claims 1-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are currently under consideration in the application.
Applicant's arguments filed November 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the applicant’s remarks/arguments on pages 15-19 of the amendment, it is noted that a portion of the applicant’s arguments are addressed in the newly underlined portions as applied above in the 35 USC 103 rejection of independent claims 1 and 10, as well as claim 2.
Regarding the first argument that applies to independent claim 1, the applicant argues (throughout pages 16-18 of the REMARKS section) that CN ‘555 does not disclose nor suggest the newly amended portions of independent claim 1, namely the claimed value of centrifugal acceleration to be “10 G or more”. Although CN ‘555 discloses that “the ball mill rotation speed is 200 to 400 rpm and the rotation time is 0.5 to 4 hours” but lacks any value of radius (in referring to pages 16 and 17 of the REMARKS section), the applicant refers to centrifugal acceleration when using the FRITSCH planetary ball mill (to obtain 19.06 G at 500 rpm, and 6.86 G at 300 rpm). However, CN ‘555 discloses a rotation speed of up to 400 rpm that would correspond to 12.20 G (if provided on the FRITSCH planetary ball mill referred to in the applicant’s supplemental response dated November 26, 2025).
In referring to the newly underlined portions in the 35 USC 103 rejection of independent claim 1 and claim 2, the examiner sets forth the obviousness of using a planetary ball mill in place of the (traditional) ball mill disclosed by CN ‘555 that can also obtain a rotation speed of up to 400 rpm (and as low as 200 rpm), despite a likelihood of having a lower G value than 12.20 G of the FRITSCH planetary ball mill in the table of values in the supplemental response dated November 26, 2025. To the extent that the centrifugal acceleration disclosed/suggested by CN ‘555 would be at a value below 10 G, it is noted that the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75 (CCPA 1946). See MPEP 2144.05(I)(¶2).
Regarding the second argument that applies to independent claim 10, the applicant argues (throughout pages 18 and 19 of the REMARKS section) that CN ‘555 does not disclose nor suggest the newly amended portions of independent claim 10. The examiner respectfully disagrees, since applicant did not address the new limitations of independent claim 10, but rather continued to argue the limitation “10 G or more” of independent claim 1 (while referring to Tables 1 and 2, and paragraphs [0079]-[0082] of applicant’s specification, for support). The values set forth in Tables 1 and 2 (of which Example 5 allegedly includes a rotational speed of 500 rpm, or 19.06 G) do not correspond to what is claimed in independent claim 10, nor to any argument that could be applicable to applicant’s claim 10. As a result, the applicant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of independent claim 10, and applicant is referred to the newly underlined portions in the 35 USC 103 rejection of independent claim 10.
In view of the above 35 USC 103 rejections and for these additional reasons, claims 1-8, 10-15, and 17-20 remain rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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 P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 March 2, 2026