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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2 are amended, claim 8 is canceled and claims 1-7, 9-10, and 11-15 are pending, and claims 12-15 are withdrawn from consideration.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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (WO 2019226020 A1 - US 20210184218 A1 referenced for citation), hereinafter “Ahn” in view of Yamada (US 20170187041 A1), hereinafter “Yamada”. Ahn and Yamada et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely negative active materials with solid electrolytes.
In regard to Claims 1-4, Ahn et al. discloses a negative electrode active material comprising: a graphite particle which is an aggregate of a plurality of primary particles, wherein the plurality of primary particles have a shape of a plate or a flake, and the plurality of primary particles are laid one upon another and the graphite particles having a void inside (gaps); and a first solid electrolyte, wherein the first solid electrolyte is present in the void, and at least a portion of the void is filled with the first solid electrolyte (Ahn, Claim 1, [0030, 0054]). Ahn et al. also discloses wherein the graphite particle has a median size of 2 to 30 μm (Ahn, Abstract, [0032, 0036]), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference, as overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
While Ahn et al. must provide the voids (gaps) in the graphite particles with some measurable size, Ahn is silent as to the void size in nm. However, the skilled artisan would be well aware of a graphite particle with voids which are capable of facilitating electrolyte infiltration as evidenced by Yamada et al. which discloses a beneficial graphite particle with a particle size of 12.9 µm and a void size of 2-4nm determined by mercury intrusion which falls within the claimed range (Yamada, Abstract, Example G1, [0131, 0802, 1063]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a graphite particle with void size of 2-4nm as taught in Yamada as doing so would be obvious to try for the skilled artisan and as doing so would amount to nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regard to Claim 9, Ahn in view of Yamada et al. discloses the negative electrode active material according to claim 1. The original specification describes the "second" solid electrolyte as merely residual amounts of the "first" solid electrolyte that are not in the voids and are naturally formed on the surface of the graphite at a 10% rate or less simply by performing the method outlined in the original specification, which is described as graphite particles with voids dipped in a solution of solid electrolyte precursor and solvent wherein the solvent is then removed and the mixture dried to crystalize the solid electrolyte precursor in the voids and inherently, partially on the surface and thus form the negative active material of the invention (Original Specification, [0098-0103]).
Ahn et al. describes a method wherein graphite particles formed from an aggregate comprising voids and with particle size falling within the claimed range contacts solid electrolyte and is mixed, which results in residual solid electrolyte not infiltrated into the pores coating the graphite surface (Ahn, Example 2) and would reasonably result in a coating rate of 10% or less, which includes a coating rate of 0%.
Further, the original specification discloses the negative electrode active material does not need to include the second electrolyte and that the first and second solid electrolyte may be the same (Original Specification, [0085, 0087]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a graphite particle formed by the method disclosed in Ahn et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the 10% or less surface coating on the graphite particle and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
In regard to Claim 10, Ahn in view of Yamada et al. discloses the negative electrode active material according to claim 1. Ahn et al. also discloses a graphite active material containing voids filled with solid electrolyte wherein the mass ratio of solid electrolyte to graphite is 3.15 mass% to 102 mass% (Ahn, [0010]), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (WO 2019226020 A1 - US 20210184218 A1 referenced for citation), hereinafter “Ahn” in view of Yamada (US 20170187041 A1), hereinafter “Yamada” as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Song et al. (KR20190044397A - US 20200411843 A1 Referenced for Citations), hereinafter "Song". Ahn, Yamada and Song are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely negative active materials with solid electrolytes.
In regard to Claims 5-6, Ahn in view of Yamada et al. discloses the negative electrode active material according to claim 1. Ahn et al. discloses that the solid electrolyte is not particularly limited and lists a combination of materials to include lithium, phosphorus, sulfur and halogen (Ahn, [0040-0043]) but is silent as to a solid electrolyte comprising lithium, phosphorus, sulfur and halogen and falling within Formula 1.
However, the skilled artisan would be well aware of variations of solid electrolytes used for infiltration into graphite that fall within formula 1 as taught in Song et al. which discloses a graphite particle contacted with solid electrolyte and a preferred list of solid electrolytes including Li2S-P2S5-LiI that includes lithium, phosphorus, sulfur, and halogen and falls within Formula (1) (Song, [0069]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the solid electrolyte of Song as the solid electrolyte of Ahn as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of success and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (WO 2019226020 A1 - US 20210184218 A1 referenced for citation), hereinafter “Ahn” in view of Yamada (US 20170187041 A1), hereinafter “Yamada” as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Umeki et al. (JP 6683363 B2 - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Umeki". Ahn, Yamada and Umeki are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely negative active materials with solid electrolytes.
In regard to Claim 7, Ahn in view of Yamada et al. discloses the negative electrode active material according to claim 1 Ahn et al. discloses that the solid electrolyte is not particularly limited and lists a combination of materials to include lithium, phosphorus, sulfur and halogen (Ahn, [0040-0043]) but is silent as to wherein the first solid electrolyte has an argyrodite crystal structure.
However, the skilled artisan would be well aware of variations of solid electrolytes used for infiltration into graphite that have an argyrodite crystal structure as taught in Umeki et al. which discloses a beneficial solid electrolyte that achieves high ionic conductivity comprising an argyrodite crystal structure (Umeki, [3-4]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a solid electrolyte comprising an argyrodite crystal structure as taught in Umeki et al. in the battery of Ahn et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Umeki et al. and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tamura et al. (US 20200136144 A1) discloses a negative electrode active material which contains graphite having pore capacity of 0.5 ml/g or less at a pore diameter of 0.2 to 1 μm measured by a mercury porosimeter (Tamura, Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights