COMPOSITE PARTICLE, POSITIVE ELECTRODE, ALL-SOLID-STATE BATTERY, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING COMPOSITE PARTICLE
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
In response to communication filed on 11/18/2025:
Claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 13, and 15 have been amended; claims 2, 4, 12, and 14 have been canceled. Claims 18-19 have been added. No new matter has been entered.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and 102(a)(1)/103 have been withdrawn due to amendment.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 103 have been modified due to amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 9 have been considered but are moot based on grounds of new rejection necessitated by amendment.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12, filed 11/18/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 10-11, 13, and 15-17 under 35 USC 102(a)(1)/103 under Sugiura (US 2021/0005888 A1) and 35 USC 103 via combination of Sugiura and Tan (CN 109 638 282 A) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
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, 3, 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Sugiura et al. (US 2021/0005888 A1) and further in view of Nose et al. (US 2015/0180024 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 5, Sugiura et al. teach a composition particle comprising (Abstract):
a positive electrode active material particle (Abstract discloses a positive electrode active material particle.); and
a coating film (Abstract discloses a coating portion.), wherein:
the coating film covers at least a part of a surface of the positive electrode active material particle (Abstract discloses the coating portion coats at least a part of the surface of the positive electrode active material particle.),
the coating film includes a phosphorus compound (Abstract discloses a phosphoric acid group.),
the phosphorus compound includes a second element, and phosphorus (Abstract discloses a second element such as La and/or Ce in addition to phosphoric acid.),
the second element includes at least one element selected from the group consisting of second transition series elements and third transition series elements, wherein: the second transition series elements include 4d transition elements; and the third transition series elements include 5d and 4f transition elements (Abstract discloses La and/or Ce.) However, Suigura does not specifically disclose a relationship given by a following formula (1) is satisfied,
CLi/(CP+CE1+CE2) ≤2.5 (1)
where CLi, CP, CEl, and CE2 represent elemental concentrations obtained by measuring the composite particle by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, CLi represents an elemental concentration of lithium, CP represents an elemental concentration of phosphorus, CEl represents an elemental concentration of the first element, and CE2 represents an elemental concentration of the second element.
Sugiura et al. do disclose the coating portion can comprise the formula LixMyPO4-z wherein 1.5≤x≤4, y>0, and 0≤z≤4 (Paragraph 0027 further discloses M=at least one of La and Ce.). Further, in paragraph 0115 of the as-filed specification, No. 16 discloses the coating layer comprises the formula LixLayPO4 wherein x and y are all numerals. This is identical to the composition claimed in Sugiura.
MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims
II. COMPOSITION CLAIMS — IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
However, Sugiura do not teach wherein the phosphorus compound includes a first element, wherein the first element is a glass network-forming element, wherein the first element includes at least one selected from the group consisting of boron, silicon, nitrogen, sulfur, germanium, and hydrogen.
Nose et al. teach a battery that comprises a positive electrode active material and a coating layer (Paragraph 0041)., wherein the coating layer comprises lithium, a phosphoric acid group, lanthanoids such as La and Ce, and Si (Paragraph 0104).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sugiura with Nose being that such materials improve cycle characteristics, oxidation and pressure resisting characteristics, high rate discharge characteristics, and storage characteristics of the battery.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sugiura and Nose et al. teach the composite particle according to claim 1. However, they do not specifically disclose wherein a coverage obtained from a result of measuring the composite particle by the X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy is 85% or more, the coverage indicating a percentage of the surface of the positive electrode active material particle covered by the coating film.
However, Sugiura et al. teach the coating portion may coat the whole of the surface of the positive electrode active material particle which is essentially 100% coverage. While, Suigura et al. do not disclose the coverage being determined by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, this is merely a product-by-process limitation. MPEP 2113: I PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sugiura and Nose et al. teach the composite particle according to claim 1. Further, Nose et al. teach wherein the phosphorus compound includes the first element and the second element (Paragraph 00104 disclose a coating material which can comprise Li, phosphorous compounds, lanthanoids such as La and Ce, and Si.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sugiura with Nose being that such materials improve cycle characteristics, oxidation and pressure resisting characteristics, high rate discharge characteristics, and storage characteristics of the battery.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sugiura and Nose et al. teach a positive electrode (Sugiura: Paragraph 0049), comprising: the composite particle according to claim 1; and a sulfide solid electrolyte (Sugiura: Paragraphs 0004; 0017 disclose sulfide-based solid electrolytes.).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Sugiura and Nose et al. teach an all-solid-state battery comprising the positive electrode according to claim 8 (Sugiura: Paragraph 0004).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11, 13, and 15-19 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the methods disclosed in Sugiura and Tan are very different from the method as claimed. Neither Sugiura nor Tan disclose or suggest such a method for producing a composite particle involving a coating solution comprising phosphorus and the specific first and second elements recited in amended independent claim 10. Further, in regards to claim 18 (dependent on claim 1), none of the cited reference disclose the first element includes boron. While Nose may disclose “borides” in paragraph 0104, this is not elemental boron.
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 DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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 Tavares-Crockett 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 January 15th, 2026
Prosecution Insights