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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujino et al., US 2020/0044284 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Fujino discloses an active material comprising a composite material comprising a cathode active material (i.e., cathode active material [0078-0086]) and a coating layer covering a surface of a cathode active material (i.e., a second solid electrolyte layer may be formed on the surface of the active material; see note below) [0047], wherein the coating layer comprises a first solid electrolyte; and a second solid electrolyte (i.e., solid electrolyte layer formed between the cathode layer and the anode layer) [0011].
Fujino discloses that the solid electrolyte coating layer ("first solid electrolyte" in the parlance of the instant application) is the same for both the anode and cathode material and is therefore only discussed in the context of the anode [0085]. It should be noted that citations to Fujino's disclosures pertaining to limitations of the solid electrolyte coating layer (namely, those in the present claim and dependent claims 4-6) are made to the anode material coating layer with the understanding that this applies also to the cathode material coating layer.
Regarding claim 3, Fujino discloses the cathode of claim 1. Fujino further discloses that the electrolyte is a sulfide-based solid electrolyte (i.e., sulfide solid electrolyte) [0048].
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Fujino discloses the cathode of claim 1. The claim limitations of claims 7 and 8 are drawn to properties of the cathode. Considering that the cathode of the instant invention is not patentably distinct from that of Fujino (see rejection of claim 1, [0006]), the claimed properties and functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.01(I).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujino et al., (US 2020/0044284 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Fujino discloses the cathode of claim 1. Fujino further discloses that the cathode active material particles have D50 values between 10 nm (i.e., 0.01 µm) to 50 µm. This overlaps the claimed range of "about 1 µm to 10 µm." It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the particles of Fujino via routine experimentation with the D50 particle size of the cathode active material within the range disclosed by Fujino in order to optimize the battery performance. Therefore, the skilled artisan would have arrived at an optimal value within the claimed range while performing routine experimentation with the D50 particle size of the cathode active material within the range disclosed by Fujino in order to optimize the battery performance. See MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 4, Fujino discloses the cathode of claim 1. Fujino further discloses that the thickness of the solid electrolyte layer in Example 3 is 100 nm (0.1 µm). This is sufficiently close to "about 0.15 µm" to render the claimed range prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Fujino discloses the cathode of claim 1. Assuming a spherical particle, the volume of the coating layer can be calculated by Equation 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
64
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R is the radius of the entire particle (i.e., R = D50) and r is the radius of the core. Put another way, when R=r+t, where t is the thickness of the coating. Therefore:
PNG
media_image2.png
64
634
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, using the ranges disclosed in " 14 and 15, the volume range of Fujino is therefore:
PNG
media_image3.png
98
628
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As the range 0.0031 to 3135 µm³ overlaps the claimed range of 4 to 40 µm³, the claim is rendered prima facie obvious over Fujino.
Regarding claim 6, Fujino discloses the cathode of claim 1. Fujino discloses that the coating is 1 to 63 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight for the active material [1] 0049]. This overlaps the claimed range of 0.74 to 10 parts by weight. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the particles of Fujino via routine experimentation with weight ratio within the range disclosed by Fujino in order to optimize the battery performance. Therefore, the skilled artisan would have arrived at an optimal value within the claimed range while performing routine experimentation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the solid electrolyte coating layer disclosed in Fujino is applicable only to the surface of the anode active material. This argument is not persuasive. The cathode layer is taught [0078-0087] to include an active material, a solid electrolyte, a conductive material and a binder [0079]. The active material includes a lithium-ion conductive (electrolyte) protective layer formed on the surface of the cathode active material [0082]. With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding paragraph [0085] of Fujino, it is agreed that the active material, solid electrolyte, conductive material and binder refer to paragraph [0079]. However, the reference does positively recite that these disclosed materials may be the same as those used in the anode layer. Fujino therefore teaches a composite material comprising a cathode active material, a coating layer completely covering a surface of the cathode active material, wherein the coating layer comprises a first solid electrolyte and wherein the cathode has a second solid electrolyte.
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 Mark Ruthkosky whose telephone number is (571)272-1291. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Gregory Tryder can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights