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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 12/11/2025 has been entered. Claim 20 is added. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 9/11/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 10/14/2025 has been considered by examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 7, 8, 12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwaya et al. (US 2012/0015234, hereinafter "Iwaya").
Regarding claim 1, Iwaya teaches an all-solid-state battery [Abstract, “A conventional, multilayer, all-solid-state, lithium ion secondary battery”] being a sintered all-solid-state battery comprising a positive electrode layer, negative electrode layer, and solid electrolyte layer [0021, “alternately stacking green sheets for positive and negative electrode layers with a green sheet for an electrolyte layer interposed therebetween to form a laminate; and a step of baking the laminate at a time to form a sintered laminate”]. Iwaya teaches that the positive and negative electrode layers both comprise active material powder (“electrode active material particles”) [0087, “a positive electrode active material powder was obtained”, 0090, “a negative electrode active material powder was obtained”]. Iwaya further teaches the solid electrolyte layer comprising a lithium ion-conducting inorganic material powder (“solid electrolyte particles”) [0093, “a lithium ion-conducting inorganic material powder was obtained”]. Iwaya teaches in Example 1 that the positive electrode active material powder, which has already been calcined (“sintered”), has an average particle size (denoted “a” in the instant claim) of 0.30 µm [0087, “The resulting powder was calcined in the air at 800.degree. C. for 2 hours”, “The powder had an average particle size of 0.30 µm”] and that the lithium ion-conducting inorganic material powder, which has already been calcined, has an average particle size (denoted “b” in the instant claim) of 0.54 µm [0093, “The resulting powder was calcined in the air at 950.degree. C. for 2 hours”, “The powder had an average particle size of 0.54 µm”]. Therefore, the value of b/a is 1.8, which is within the recited range of 0.5 to 2.5.
Further regarding claim 7, Iwaya teaches that the positive electrode layer and negative electrode layer are both placed onto respective current collectors, with an active material layer, including the active material powder, disposed on both surfaces [0080, “the positive electrode paste, a positive electrode collector paste, and the positive electrode paste are applied in this order”, “the negative electrode paste, a negative electrode collector paste, and the negative electrode paste”].
Further regarding claim 8, Iwaya teaches that the electrode active material layer includes solid electrolyte particles, and that the same solid electrolyte material is used for the solid electrolyte layer and the active material layer [0060, “A material having low electron conductivity and high lithium ion conductivity is preferably used as a solid electrolyte to form each of the solid electrolyte layer and the electrode layer of the lithium ion secondary battery of the invention”].
Further regarding claim 12, Iwaya teaches that the positive electrode active material layer has a thickness of 5 µm and that the negative electrode active material layer has a thickness of 6 µm, both of which are within the recited range of 1.0 µm to 20 µm [0100, “a thickness of each positive electrode layer of µm, and a thickness of each negative electrode layer of 6 µm”].
Further regarding claim 15, Iwaya teaches that the solid electrolyte layer has a thickness of 7 µm which is within the recited range of 1.0 µm to 30 µm [0100, “a thickness of each lithium ion-conducting inorganic material of 7 µm”].
Further regarding claim 16, Iwaya teaches that the sintered all-solid-state battery includes a laminate (“body”) including the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer alternately stacked with the solid electrolyte layer interposed between [0021, “a stacking step of alternately stacking green sheets for positive and negative electrode layers with a green sheet for an electrolyte layer interposed therebetween to form a laminate; and a step of baking the laminate at a time to form a sintered laminate”].
Further regarding claim 17, Iwaya teaches lead electrodes (“external electrode”) disposed on both ends of the laminate [0080, “For example, each electrode terminal (lead electrode) may be formed by applying a lead electrode paste to each side face of the battery”].
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwaya (US 2012/0015234) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takimoto et al. (US 2013/0084500, hereinafter Takimoto).
Regarding claim 3, Iwaya teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1 as described in the rejection for instant claim 1. Iwaya does not specifically teach the electrode active material particles including particles represented by LixV2-yMy(PO4)3, where 1≤x≤3 and 0≤y<2.
Takimoto teaches analogous art of a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising a positive electrode with a positive electrode material of lithium vanadium phosphate (LVP) [0002, “The present invention relates to a positive-electrode material, particularly a positive-electrode material including lithium vanadium phosphate, a lithium-ion secondary battery using the positive-electrode material”]. Takimoto teaches that the LVP has a chemical formula of LixV2-yMy(PO4)z, wherein M is a metallic element with an atomic number of 11 or more, such as Fe, Co, Mn, Cu, Zn, Al, Sn, B, Ga, Cr, V, Ti, Mg, Ca, Sr, and Zr, and 1≤x≤3, 0≤y<2, and 2≤z≤3 [0021-0024]. When the value of “z” is 3, the chemical formula taught by Takimoto is the same as the chemical formula recited in claim 3.
Takimoto teaches that when this LVP is used as a positive electrode material, rate characteristics of the battery are improved and decreases in capacity maintenance rate are reduced [0121]. Takimoto further teaches that the use of this LVP maintains high energy density and operating voltage in the battery [0122].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the all-solid-state battery taught by Iwaya to include the lithium vanadium phosphate with the chemical formula taught by Takimoto in the positive electrode active material particles in order to improve rate characteristics of the battery, reduce decreases in capacity maintenance rate, and maintain high energy density and operating voltage.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwaya (US 2012/0015234).
Regarding claim 4, Iwaya teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1, as described in the rejection for instant claim 1. Iwaya further discloses that the particle size of the active material powder may be 3 µm or less, which overlaps with the recited range [0023, “a powder comprising the active material and having a particle size of 3 µm or less”]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 6, Iwaya teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1, as described in the rejection for instant claim 1. Iwaya further discloses that the particle size of the solid electrolyte powder may be 3 µm or less, which overlaps with the recited range [0023, “a powder comprising the solid electrolyte and having a particle size of 3 µm or less”]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwaya (US 2012/0015234) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sato et al. (US 2015/0333366, hereinafter "Sato").
Regarding claim 5, Iwaya teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1 as described in the rejection for instant claim 1. Iwaya does not specifically teach the solid electrolyte particles including particles represented by Li1+yAlyTi2-y(PO4)3 where 0<y≤0.6.
Sato teaches analogous art of a lithium ion secondary battery including a solid electrolyte layer [Abstract, “A provided lithium ion secondary battery includes a pair of electrodes and a solid electrolyte layer”]. Sato teaches that the solid electrolyte layer comprises titanium aluminum lithium phosphate represented by the chemical formula Li1+xAlxTi2-x(PO4)3 where 0≤x≤0.6 [0041, “The solid electrolyte layer 3 of the lithium ion secondary battery 10 of this embodiment includes the titanium aluminum lithium phosphate 8. As the titanium aluminum lithium phosphate 8, Li1+xAlxTi2-x(PO4)3 (0≦x≦0.6) can be used”].
Sato teaches that the materials of the positive and negative electrode current collectors in the battery do not react with the titanium aluminum lithium phosphate, reducing the internal resistance of the battery [0024]. Sato further teaches that the battery which includes Li1+xAlxTi2-x(PO4)3 (0≦x≦0.6) has improved reliability and suppressed short-circuiting [0020, “According to the lithium ion secondary battery with the above structure, the short-circuiting of the battery may be suppressed and the reliability thereof is improved”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the all-solid-state battery taught by Iwaya to include the titanium aluminum lithium phosphate with the chemical formula taught by Sato in the solid electrolyte particles in order to reduce the internal resistance and short-circuiting of the battery, as well as to improve its reliability.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwaya (US 2012/0015234) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Dolle et al. (US 2013/0189562, hereinafter "Dolle").
Regarding claim 9, Iwaya teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 7 as described in the rejection for instant claim 7. Iwaya does not specifically teach the electrode active material layer including the electrode active material particles and the solid electrolyte particles in a weight ratio of 1:9 to 9:1.
Dolle teaches analogous art of a solid Li-ion battery comprising a solid state body including a layer of a powder mix including a positive electrode active material and a solid electrolyte (MP2) and a layer of a powder mix including a negative electrode active material and a solid electrolyte (MP1) [Abstract, “a completely solid Li-ion battery having a solid state body wherein the battery is assembled in a single step by stacking at least one layer of a powder mix including a positive electrode active material and a solid electrolyte, at least one intermediate layer of a solid electrolyte and at least one layer of a powder mix including a negative electrode active material and a solid electrolyte”]. Dolle teaches that the weight percentage of solid electrolyte content in each mixture may be 10 to 80% [0022], and the weight percentage of active electrode material content in each mixture may be 20 to 85% [0024]. At the low end of the active material range and the high end of the solid electrolyte range, the ratio of active material to solid electrolyte is 20:80, or 0.25. At the high end of the active material range and the low end of the solid electrolyte range, the ratio of active material to solid electrolyte is 85:10, or 8.5. Therefore, the range of possible ratios of active material to solid electrolyte taught by Dolle overlaps the recited range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Dolle teaches that the battery comprising that structure has the advantage of no parasitic reactions taking place between the constituents of various layers, good contact at the electrode electrolyte interfaces, and improved thermal stability that allows the battery to operate at higher temperatures [0029, “no parasitic reaction takes place between the constituents of the various layers of the battery, “a good contact at the electrodes/electrolyte interfaces is guaranteed”, 0033, “it makes it possible to develop batteries that are more thermally stable than conventional Li-ion batteries, both in the charged and discharged state. These batteries can be operated at higher temperatures”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the all-solid-state battery taught by Iwaya to include the active material and solid electrolyte within the weight ratio taught by Dolle in order to prevent parasitic reactions taking place layers, have good contact at the electrode electrolyte interfaces, and improve the thermal stability of the battery allowing it to operate at higher temperatures.
Further regarding claim 10, Iwaya teaches that the electrode layers may further include an electrically-conductive material [0065, “a small amount of an electrically-conductive material may be added as a material for the paste used to form the positive electrode layer and/or the negative electrode layer in addition to the active material and the solid electrolyte”].
Further regarding claim 11, Iwaya does not specifically teach the weight percentages of active material, solid electrolyte, and conductive material in the electrode active material layer.
As described previously, Dolle teaches that the weight percentage of solid electrolyte content in each mixture may be 10 to 80% [0022], and the weight percentage of active electrode material content in each mixture may be 20 to 85% [0024] Dolle further teaches that the weight percentage of an electron-conductivity providing agent in each mixture may be 2 to 25% [0023]. The ranges of the weight percentages of each component taught by Dolle overlap the ranges recited in instant claim 11. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Dolle teaches that the battery comprising that structure has the advantage of no parasitic reactions taking place between the constituents of various layers, good contact at the electrode electrolyte interfaces, and improved thermal stability that allows the battery to operate at higher temperatures [0029, “no parasitic reaction takes place between the constituents of the various layers of the battery, “a good contact at the electrodes/electrolyte interfaces is guaranteed”, 0033, “it makes it possible to develop batteries that are more thermally stable than conventional Li-ion batteries, both in the charged and discharged state. These batteries can be operated at higher temperatures”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the all-solid-state battery taught by Iwaya to include the active material, solid electrolyte, and conductive material within the weight percentage ranges taught by Dolle in order to prevent parasitic reactions taking place layers, have good contact at the electrode electrolyte interfaces, and improve the thermal stability of the battery allowing it to operate at higher temperatures.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwaya (US 2012/0015234) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Tashiro et al. (WO 2014057804, referring to previously-provided translation thereof, hereinafter "Tashiro").
Regarding claim 13, Iwaya teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 7 as described in the rejection for instant claim 7. Iwaya does not specifically teach the current collector including copper particles.
Tashiro teaches analogous art of a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising a copper foil used as a negative electrode current collector [page 1, “the present invention relates to a surface-treated copper foil used for a negative electrode current collector of a lithium-ion secondary battery or the like”].
Tashiro discloses that copper foil has been commonly used as a current collector material [page 2, “In recent years, copper foil is not limited to being used as a circuit forming material, but is also used as a negative electrode current collector”]. The copper foil used as a current collector taught by Tashiro exhibits very little decrease in tensile strength [page 4, “the present inventors have come up with the idea of a surface-treated copper foil that exhibits little decrease in tensile strength even when subjected to a high-temperature heat treatment”], which is necessary for batteries [page 3, “when copper foil is used as the current collector, the copper foil is required to have high tensile strength”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the all-solid-state battery taught by Iwaya to include the copper current collector taught by Tashiro in order to provide a current collector that does not exhibit a large decrease in tensile strength.
Further regarding claim 14, Iwaya does not specifically teach copper particles in the current collector, nor their average diameter.
Tashiro teaches that the grain size of the copper constituting the copper foil used as a current collector is preferably 1.0 µm or less, which overlaps the recited range [page 5, “it is preferable that the copper constituting the copper foil has an average crystal grain size of 1.0 μm or less”]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Tashiro teaches that when the grain size is outside this range, it become difficult to maintain the tensile strength needed for the current collector [page 10, “If the average crystal grain size exceeds 1.0 μm, it becomes difficult to maintain the level of tensile strength required for a negative electrode current collector”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the all-solid-state battery taught by Iwaya to include copper particles in the current collector with an average size in the range taught by Tashiro in order to maintain the necessary tensile strength of the current collector.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwaya (US 2012/0015234) in view of Takimoto (US 2013/0084500) and Sato (US 2015/0333366).
Regarding claim 18, Iwaya teaches an all-solid-state battery [Abstract, “A conventional, multilayer, all-solid-state, lithium ion secondary battery”] comprising a positive electrode layer, negative electrode layer, and solid electrolyte layer [0021, “alternately stacking green sheets for positive and negative electrode layers with a green sheet for an electrolyte layer interposed therebetween to form a laminate; and a step of baking the laminate at a time to form a sintered laminate”]. Iwaya teaches that the positive and negative electrode layers both comprise active material powder (“electrode active material particles”) [0087, “a positive electrode active material powder was obtained”, 0090, “a negative electrode active material powder was obtained”]. Iwaya further teaches the solid electrolyte layer comprising a lithium ion-conducting inorganic material powder (“solid electrolyte particles”) [0093, “a lithium ion-conducting inorganic material powder was obtained”]. Iwaya teaches in Example 1 that the positive electrode active material powder, which has already been calcined (“sintered”), has an average particle size (denoted “a” in the instant claim) of 0.30 µm [0087, “The resulting powder was calcined in the air at 800.degree. C. for 2 hours”, “The powder had an average particle size of 0.30 µm”] and that the lithium ion-conducting inorganic material powder, which has already been calcined, has an average particle size (denoted “b” in the instant claim) of 0.54 µm [0093, “The resulting powder was calcined in the air at 950.degree. C. for 2 hours”, “The powder had an average particle size of 0.54 µm”]. Therefore, the value of b/a is 1.8, which is within the recited range of 0.5 to 2.5.
Iwaya does not specifically teach the electrode active material particles including particles represented by LixV2-yMy(PO4)3, where 1≤x≤3 and 0≤y<2 or the solid electrolyte particles including particles represented by Li1+yAlyTi2-y(PO4)3 where 0<y≤0.6.
Takimoto teaches analogous art of a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising a positive electrode with a positive electrode material of lithium vanadium phosphate (LVP) [0002, “The present invention relates to a positive-electrode material, particularly a positive-electrode material including lithium vanadium phosphate, a lithium-ion secondary battery using the positive-electrode material”]. Takimoto teaches that the LVP has a chemical formula of LixV2-yMy(PO4)z, wherein M is a metallic element with an atomic number of 11 or more, such as Fe, Co, Mn, Cu, Zn, Al, Sn, B, Ga, Cr, V, Ti, Mg, Ca, Sr, and Zr, and 1≤x≤3, 0≤y<2, and 2≤z≤3 [0021-0024]. When the value of “z” is 3, the chemical formula taught by Takimoto is the same as the chemical formula recited in claim 3.
Takimoto teaches that when this LVP is used as a positive electrode material, rate characteristics of the battery are improved and decreases in capacity maintenance rate are reduced [0121]. Takimoto further teaches that the use of this LVP maintains high energy density and operating voltage in the battery [0122].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the all-solid-state battery taught by Iwaya to include the lithium vanadium phosphate with the chemical formula taught by Takimoto in the positive electrode active material particles in order to improve rate characteristics of the battery, reduce decreases in capacity maintenance rate, and maintain high energy density and operating voltage.
Iwaya does not specifically teach the solid electrolyte particles including particles represented by Li1+yAlyTi2-y(PO4)3 where 0<y≤0.6.
Sato teaches analogous art of a lithium ion secondary battery including a solid electrolyte layer [Abstract, “A provided lithium ion secondary battery includes a pair of electrodes and a solid electrolyte layer”]. Sato teaches that the solid electrolyte layer comprises titanium aluminum lithium phosphate represented by the chemical formula Li1+xAlxTi2-x(PO4)3 where 0≤x≤0.6 [0041, “The solid electrolyte layer 3 of the lithium ion secondary battery 10 of this embodiment includes the titanium aluminum lithium phosphate 8. As the titanium aluminum lithium phosphate 8, Li1+xAlxTi2-x(PO4)3 (0≦x≦0.6) can be used”].
Sato teaches that the materials of the positive and negative electrode current collectors in the battery do not react with the titanium aluminum lithium phosphate, reducing the internal resistance of the battery [0024]. Sato further teaches that the battery which includes Li1+xAlxTi2-x(PO4)3 (0≦x≦0.6) has improved reliability and suppressed short-circuiting [0020, “According to the lithium ion secondary battery with the above structure, the short-circuiting of the battery may be suppressed and the reliability thereof is improved”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the all-solid-state battery taught by Iwaya to include the titanium aluminum lithium phosphate with the chemical formula taught by Sato in the solid electrolyte particles in order to reduce the internal resistance and short-circuiting of the battery, as well as to improve its reliability.
Further regarding claim 19, Iwaya teaches the all-solid-state battery being a sintered battery [0021, “alternately stacking green sheets for positive and negative electrode layers with a green sheet for an electrolyte layer interposed therebetween to form a laminate; and a step of baking the laminate at a time to form a sintered laminate”].
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikejiri et al. (WO 2018020990, referring to previously-provided translation thereof, hereinafter "Ikejiri").
Regarding claim 1, Ikejiri teaches an all-solid-state battery comprising a positive electrode layer, negative electrode layer, and solid electrolyte layer [page 2, “The above-described all-solid-state battery has a positive electrode layer, a negative electrode layer, and a solid electrolyte layer”]. The positive and negative electrode layers comprise active material powder (“electrode active material particles”) and the solid electrolyte layer comprises solid electrolyte powder (“solid electrolyte particles”) [page 2, “In general, the solid electrolyte layer is made of a solid electrolyte powder having sodium ion conductivity. The positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer are made of a mixture (electrode mixture) of an active material powder”]. Ikejiri also discloses that the all-solid-state battery is sintered [page 10, “The electrode composite of the present invention is characterized by comprising a sintered body of an electrode composite”]. Ikejiri teaches that the ratio of the average particle size of the solid electrolyte powder (denoted “b” in the instant claim) to the active material precursor powder (denoted “a” in the instant claim) is preferably 1.0-15, which overlaps with the recited range of 0.5-2.5 [page 11, “The ratio of the average particle size of the solid electrolyte powder to the active material precursor powder (average particle size of the solid electrolyte powder/average particle size of the active material precursor powder) is preferably 0.5-25, 0.7-20, and particularly preferably 1.0-15”]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). The average particle size of the solid electrolyte powder taught by Ikejiri is for the solid electrolyte powder after it has been heat-treated as 1600°C for 30 minutes (“sintered”) [page 22, “The raw material powder was molded by uniaxial pressing at 40 MPa using a φ20 mm mold, and heat-treated at 1600°C for 30 minutes to obtain β”-alumina”, page 23, “… to obtain a solid electrolyte powder consisting of β”-alumina … The average particle size and BET specific surface area of the obtained solid electrolyte powder are shown in Tables 1 and 2”]. The average particle size of the positive electrode active material precursor powder taught by Ikejiri is for the positive electrode active material precursor powder after it has been subjected to a heating process of melting at 1250°C for 45 minutes (“sintered”) [page 24, “raw material powders were mixed to have a composition … and melted in an air atmosphere at 1250°C for 45 minutes”, “this glass coarse powder was subjected to ball milling … to obtain glass powder (positive electrode active material precursor powder) with an average particle size of 0.7 µm].
Further regarding claim 2, as previously described, Ikejiri teaches the ratio of the average particle size of the solid electrolyte powder (denoted “b” in the instant claim) to the active material precursor powder (denoted “a” in the instant claim) is preferably 1.0-15, which overlaps with the recited range of 1.1-1.4 [page 11]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the unexpected results achieved by a sintered all-solid-state battery comprising electrode active material particles with an average diameter (a) and solid electrolyte particles with an average diameter (b) satisfying the equation 1.1≤(b/a)≤1.4 and wherein the electrode active material particles include particles represented by chemical formula LixV2-yMy(PO4)3, wherein M is at least one selected from the group consisting of Fe, Co, Mn, Cu, Zn, Al, Sn, B, Ga, Cr, V, Ti, Mg, Ca, Sr, and Zr, 1≤x≤3 and 0≤y<2.
Ikejiri (WO 2018020990) teaches that the ratio of the average particle size of a solid electrolyte powder (denoted “b” in the instant claim) to an active material precursor powder (denoted “a” in the instant claim) is preferably 1.0-15, which overlaps with the recited range of 0.5-2.5 [page 11]. However, Ikejiri does not teach or fairly suggest the active material precursor powder having the chemical formula recited in instant claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Iwaya does not teach or suggest controlling particle size ratio during sintering affects interfacial resistance [Remarks, page 7, page 10], the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). As described in the rejection of claim 1 above, Iwaya teaches a specific example having a particle size ratio within the range recited in the claim; therefore, Iwaya anticipates the subject matter of claim 1. [W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is 'anticipated' if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) [See MPEP 2131.03].
Furthermore, Iwaya teaches in Example 1 that the average particle sizes reported are for the positive electrode active material powder and the lithium ion-conducting inorganic material powder after they have been calcined, or sintered. Thus, this argument is not considered persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant alleges that “the presently amended claims have an effect that is not predicted from the combination of any of the cited references” [Remarks, page 9]. The applicant has cited Tables 2 and 3 and Examples 1 to 5 compared to Comparative Examples 1 to 7 as evidence offered to support this allegation of unexpected results. Examples 1 to 5 use Li3V2(PO4)3 as the electrode active material particles and satisfy 1.1≤(b/a)≤1.4, while Comparative Examples 1 to 7 do not satisfy 1.1≤(b/a)≤1.4, or do not use Li3V2(PO4)3 as the electrode active material particles. It is respectfully submitted that there are multiple deficiencies with respect to Applicant’s allegation of unexpected results for claims 1-19.
The first overarching issue is that whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." (MPEP 716.02(d)) (Examiner emphasis). In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). See also the following case law (MPEP 716.02(d)):
In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-31, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-85 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (data showing improved alloy strength with the addition of 2% rhenium did not evidence unexpected results for the entire claimed range of about 1-3% rhenium);
In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to certain catalysts containing an alkali metal. Evidence presented to rebut an obviousness rejection compared catalysts containing sodium with the prior art. The court held this evidence insufficient to rebut the prima facie case because experiments limited to sodium were not commensurate in scope with the claims.); and
In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972) (Evidence of nonobviousness consisted of comparing a single composition within the broad scope of the claims with the prior art. The court did not find the evidence sufficient to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness because there was "no adequate basis for reasonably concluding that the great number and variety of compositions included in the claims would behave in the same manner as the tested composition.")
Examples 1-5 in the instant specification only have (b/a) values ranging from 1.1 to 1.4. As noted in the case law of In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980), the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). Thus, the evidence offered does not support the range of 0.5≤(b/a)≤2.5 recited in claims 1 and 18. For example, do the unexpected results occur at the endpoints of (b/a)=0.5 or (b/a)=2.5? The answer is not clear as there is no data for either of those endpoints. As such, the Examiner does not find the objective evidence offered to support the allegation of nonobviousness in terms of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support (MPEP 716.02(d)).
Regarding claim 2, Examples 1-5 all use Li3V2(PO4)3 as the electrode active material particles, which is not commensurate in scope with the claim. For example, in the case law of In re Grasselli cited above, the evidence of experiments limited to sodium were considered insufficient to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness because the claims were directed to catalysts containing an alkali metal (sodium being a species of the genus alkali metal of which there are only six alkali metals). Likewise, in terms of rebutting a prima facie case of obviousness on the basis of unexpected results, the single species of Li3V2(PO4)3 does not provide sufficient evidence for the claimed genus of “electrode active material species”. Furthermore, Comparative Example 6 has a (b/a) value that satisfies 1.1≤(b/a)≤1.4. However, Comparative Example 6 has a lower discharge capacity than Examples 1-5. The only difference Between Comparative Example 6 and Examples 1-5 is that Comparative Example 6 uses LiCoO2 as the electrode active material particles, instead of Li3V2(PO4)3. This would suggest that any unexpected results displayed in Examples 1-5 are a result of both the (b/a) value and the use of Li3V2(PO4)3 as an electrode active material particle, not just the result of the (b/a) value. As such, the Examiner does not find the objective evidence offered to support the allegation of nonobviousness in terms of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support (MPEP 716.02(d)).
Regarding new claim 20, the objective evidence offered to support the allegation of unexpected results is commensurate in scope with the claim.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant alleges that Takimoto, Sato, Dolle, and Tashiro do not teach or suggest the limitations of instant claim 1; however, as described previously, Iwaya anticipates the subject matter of claim 1. Thus, this argument is not considered persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant's arguments that the combination of Iwaya and Takimoto with Sato would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because Sato is nonanalogous art which relates to an entirely different technical field from Takimoto, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Sato and Takimoto are in the field of the inventor’s endeavor of secondary batteries comprising solid electrolytes. Sato teaches a lithium ion secondary battery comprising a solid electrolyte layer [Abstract]; Takimoto teaches that the battery may comprise a solid electrolyte [0065]. Thus, this argument is not considered persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant's argument that Ikejiri fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., electrode active material particles comprising LixV2-yMy(PO4)3) are not recited in the rejected claims 1-2. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding applicant’s argument that Ikejiri does not teach or suggest the presence of positive or negative electrode layers, Ikejiri does teach an all-solid-state battery comprising a positive electrode layer and a negative electrode layer [page 2, “The above-described all-solid-state battery has a positive electrode layer, a negative electrode layer”]. Furthermore, Ikejiri does teach a particle size ratio of the solid electrolyte powder to the active material precursor powder is preferably 1.0-15, which overlaps with the recited range of 0.5-2.5 in claim 1 and 1.1-1.4 in claim 2 [page 11], and that the solid electrolyte used in a solid electrolyte layer and in an electrode mixture are made of the same material [page 21]. Ikejiri also discloses that the all-solid-state battery is sintered [page 10]. Thus, this argument is not considered persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
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 MARIA F OROZCO whose telephone number is (571)272-0172. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/M.F.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729