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 .
This action is in response to applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 05/27/2026. Claims 1 and 3-6 are currently pending for examination on the merits, with claims 7-15 withdrawn from further consideration.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi et al. (WO 2020/049843 with citations made from English equivalent US 2021/0202947) (Kikuchi) (of record) in view of Tanoue et al. (US 2016/0093914) (Tanoue) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Kikuchi discloses a positive electrode composite active material (coated positive electrode active material) constituting a part of a positive electrode of a lithium ion secondary battery using a nonaqueous electrolyte (title; abstract), the positive electrode composite active material (coated positive electrode active material) comprising: a positive electrode active material; and an oxide-based solid electrolyte (abstract; [0012]; [0017]), wherein the oxide-based solid electrolyte is represented by Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3 ([0056]; see also [0030]), suggesting the claimed formula Li1+p+q+rAlpGaq(Ti, Ge)2-p-qSirP3-rO12, particularly when p=0.3, q=0, and r=0, wherein the oxide-based solid electrolyte is layered (abstract; [0012]; [0017]; [0020]-[0024]; [0031]). Regarding the claimed amorphous portion and crystalline portion of the oxide-based solid electrolyte, the instant application is clear that the amorphous portion and the crystalline portion are obtained through a pulverization step resulting in LATP fine powder having a dBET of 3 to 25 nm (see [0164], [0188]-[0189], and [0081] of the PGPub of the instant application) and a heat treatment step in which a grinded product of the electrolyte dispersion obtained through the pulverization step and a positive electrode active material are heated to 300oC or higher and 600oC or lower for 30 minutes to 3 hours (see [0164]-[0169] of the PGPub). If the composition and structure of the prior art are substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01). Therefore, since Kikuchi discloses a substantially identical pulverization step resulting in LATP powder having a dBET of 23 nm ([0056]-[0057]) and a substantially identical heat treatment step in which a grinded product of the electrolyte dispersion obtained in the pulverization step and a positive electrode active material are heated 300oC or higher and 600oC or lower for 30 minutes to 3 hours ([0024]; [0059]), it is considered inherent that the oxide-based solid electrolyte disclosed by Kikuchi includes a mixture of an amorphous portion and a crystalline portion, wherein the amorphous portion is in contact with the positive electrode active material. Kikuchi fails to explicitly disclose, however, that a coating thickness of the oxide-based solid electrolyte is 5 nm or more and 50 nm or less.
However, this configuration is known in the art. For instance, Tanoue teaches a similar positive electrode composite active material (title; abstract) comprising a positive electrode active material and an oxide-based solid electrolyte (abstract; [0008]), wherein the oxide-based solid electrolyte is layered and has a coating thickness of 1 to 80 nm ([0029]), encompassing the claimed range of 5 nm or more and 50 nm or less. A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05. Tanoue further teaches that configuring the thickness of the oxide-based solid electrolyte in this way helps to prevent exposed portions of the positive electrode active material on the surface of the raw material powder while maintaining good conductivity ([0029]; [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the coating thickness of the oxide-based solid electrolyte disclosed by Kikuchi to be within the claimed range, as taught by Tanoue, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would prevent exposed portions of the positive electrode active material on the surface of the raw material powder while also maintaining good conductivity.
Regarding the claimed particle size of the oxide-based solid electrolyte, modified Kikuchi further discloses that the oxide-based solid electrolyte has an average particle size of 1 to 100 nm (Kikuchi: [0031]), overlapping the claimed range of 10 nm or less. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen an average particle size for the oxide-based solid electrolyte to be well within the claimed range through routine experimentation of the overlapping range disclosed by modified Kikuchi.
Regarding the claimed integrated intensity ratio of 1% to 5%, the instant application is clear that this intensity ratio is the result of pulverizing the oxide-based solid electrolyte material to have an average particle size of 10 nm or less, resulting in crystal structure destruction (see [0080]-[0088] and [0038]-[0042] of the PGPub of the instant application). As set forth above, modified Kikuchi discloses a substantially identical pulverization step as the instant application (Kikuchi: [0056]-[0057]) (compare with [0188]-[0189] of the PGPub of the instant application), and it has been established that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen an average particle size of the oxide-based solid electrolyte within the claimed range of 10 nm or less based on the overlapping range of 1 to 100 nm disclosed by modified Kikuchi. If the composition and structure of the prior art are substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01). Therefore, it would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the oxide-based solid electrolyte disclosed by modified Kikuchi with an average particle size of 10 nm or less to have satisfied the claimed integrated intensity ratio because it would have been substantially identical to that of the instant application.
Regarding claim 3, modified Kikuchi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Regarding the claimed integrated intensity ratio 50% or more, the instant application is clear that this intensity ratio is the result of pulverizing the oxide-based solid electrolyte material to have an average particle size of 10 nm or less, resulting in crystal structure destruction (see [0080]-[0088] and [0038]-[0042] of the PGPub of the instant application). As set forth above, modified Kikuchi discloses a substantially identical pulverization step as the instant application (Kikuchi: [0056]-[0057]) (compare with [0188]-[0189] of the PGPub of the instant application), and modified Kikuchi further discloses that the oxide-based solid electrolyte can have an average particle size of 1 to 100 nm (Kikuchi: [0031]), which overlaps the disclosed range of 10 nm or less. If the composition and structure of the prior art are substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the oxide-based solid electrolyte disclosed by modified Kikuchi to have satisfied the claimed integrated intensity ratio because modified Kikuchi discloses an oxide-based solid electrolyte that can be substantially identical to that of the instant application.
Regarding claim 4, modified Kikuchi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Kikuchi further discloses that the positive electrode active material has a median diameter of 5 µm or more (Kikuchi: [0029]), suggesting the claimed range of 5 µm or more.
Regarding claim 5, modified Kikuchi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Kikuchi further discloses that the positive electrode active material is a lithium ion conductive active material having an operation potential of 4.5 V or more (abstract; [0012]; [0025]-[0026]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kikuchi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Kikuchi further discloses that the positive electrode active material is a substitutional lithium manganese compound represented by the formula (1):
Li1+xMyMn2-x-yO4, (1)
wherein in the formula (1), x and y respectively satisfy x and y, and M is at least one selected from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Zn, Ni, Co, Fe, Ti, Cu, and Cr (Kikuchi: [0026]-[0027]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 02/02/2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Tobishima previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 02/02/2023.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments against the Kikuchi reference, examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant specifically argues that the claimed 4-coordination intensity ratio is not inherently linked to the particle size, as shown by Example 3 of the instant application which has a particle size of 4 nm and a 4-coordination intensity ratio of 6.2%. Applicant also points out that the experimental examples disclosed by Kikuchi have a particle size of 23 nm and a gas generation amount that suggests a 4-coordination ratio outside of the claimed range. However, examiner never claims that the experimental examples disclosed by Kikuchi inherently read on the claimed intensity ratio. Instead, the rejection asserts that Kikuchi’s disclosure of an encompassing average particle size of 1 to 100 nm (Kikuchi: [0031]) along with a substantially identical pulverization step (Kikuchi: [0056]-[0057]) as the instant application would necessarily include the claimed scenario. Indeed, while the experimental examples disclosed by Kikuchi lead to an average particle size of 23 nm (Kikuchi: [0057]), given Kikuchi’s broader disclosure of 1 to 100 nm (Kikuchi: [0031]), one of ordinary skill in the art would have been well equipped to appropriately adjust the specifications of the pulverization step in the experimental examples in order to reach a particle size near the lower end of the disclosed range, for example a particle size of 3 nm or 5 nm. Examiner emphasizes that disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments (see MPEP §2123(II)). Furthermore, this routine experimentation would almost certainly have led to an intensity ratio within the claimed range because Kikuchi’s pulverization step combined with a small particle size is substantially identical to the pulverization step and particle sizes outlined in the instant specification as leading to the claimed 4-coordination intensity ratio (see [0080]-[0088]; [0038]-[0042]; and Examples 1-2 in Table 1 of the PGPub of the instant application). Examiner also notes that applicant has not presented any evidence of unexpected results or criticality for any of the claimed ranges that would discourage one of ordinary skill in the art from performing this type of routine experimentation. While applicant points out that Example 3 of the instant application includes a particle size under 10 nm with an intensity ratio outside of the claimed range, examiner notes that the production method of Example 3 is changed from the production methods of Examples 1 and 2 (see [0202] of the PGPub of the instant application). Thus, examiner’s reasoning that the combination of a small particle size with the substantially similar pulverization step inherently leads to the claimed intensity ratio still stands. Finally, regarding applicant’s arguments that none of the experimental examples disclosed by Kikuchi result in gas generation consistent with a 4-coordination intensity ratio within the claimed range, examiner again notes that these examples are non-limiting and do not teach away from Kikuchi’s broader disclosure. Indeed, routine experimentation resulting in smaller particle sizes (10 nm or less) than the examples disclosed by Kikuchi in Table 1 would be expected to result in gas generation amounts consistent with the claimed intensity ratios. Thus, applicant’s arguments against the Kikuchi reference are not persuasive.
As such, claims 1 and 3-6 stand 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 BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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.
/B.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights