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 is action is responsive to amendments filed on 2/24/2026.
Claims 1-3,6 and 7 are pending. Claims 4 and 5 are cancelled. Claims 1 and 3 are amended. Claims 6 and 7 are new.
Claim(s) 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2022/0384792 (US ‘792).
The rejections of Claim(s) 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20210265623 (US ‘623) are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejections over US ‘792, Applicants have amended claim 1 to further narrow limitations directed to Raman intensity peak ratios, the Li/B ratio, coverage of the claimed coating and adding a thickness limitation of the coating layer which Applicants contend are not disclosed by the prior art.
As will be noted below, the prior art still discloses the newly added limitations except for the peak intensity ratios.
However, as Applicants have not addressed the inherency rationale discussed in the Non-Final Rejection, the Examiner maintains said limitation would be inherently disclosed by the prior art.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2022/0384792 (US ‘792).
As to Claim 1, US ‘792 discloses a composite particle comprising a core portion of lithium metal oxide mixed with a boron oxide and heated to form a coating layer of lithium boron oxide on the surface of the core (para. 0023). The mixture is fired at 250 to 500 deg C (para. 0024) and the coverage of the coating is 70 % or more of the surface (para. 0027). The covering layer composition can be LiB4O7 (para. 0075) i.e. Li/B ratio of 0.25 which meets the Li/B ratio limitations of the instant claims and the thickness of the coating layer is 15 to 150 nm (para. 0079).
However, US ‘792 fails to disclose the Raman spectra intensity ratio as required by the instant claim.
As to the difference, the Examiner respectfully submits the prior art would inherently meet the claimed limitation due the similarity of the processes used to create prior art material and instantly claimed material i.e. a mixture of composite precursor materials followed by firing at similar temperatures.
As to Claim 2, see discussion of Claim 1.
As to Claim 3, the Examiner notes the intended use language of the claim and further notes that the prior art would inherently be able to perform the function as a material for a sulfide all-solid-state battery.
As to Claim 6, the coating material can be in amorphous form (para. 0017).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US ‘792 view of US ‘623.
As to Claim 7, US ‘792 fails to disclose the composite active material electrode particle with an average particle size of 5 to 10 microns.
As to the difference, US ‘623 discloses a composite particle comprising a core portion of lithium metal oxide (para. 0055) mixed with a boron oxide and heated to form a coating layer of lithium boron oxide on the surface of the core wherein the heating is at 250 to 500 deg C (para. 0082). The particles have an average particle size of 0.1 to 20 microns (para. 0054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to expect similar physical properties such as particle size diameters in the US ‘792 particles as those of US ‘623 reference due to the similarity of the materials and the production processes used in both references.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JAISON P THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-8917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 am-3:30 pm EST.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/J.P.T/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/jt/ 4/1/2026
/MARK KOPEC/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights