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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 12/04/25, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1 is/are amended; claim(s) 3 and 5–7 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are canceled; and claims 8–12 are added without entering new matter. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 09/04/25 has/have been withdrawn. However, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 has/have been maintained and altered as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, as set forth below. Applicant’s amendment further necessitated the new grounds of rejection of new claims 8–12 below.
Claim Objections
It is recommended that Applicant amend the claims as follows: in claims 9 and 12, line 3, “a stirring time … of the first compositing” should read “[[a]] the stirring time of the first compositing” to denote proper antecedence from claims 1 and 10, respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 7–12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchida et al. (US 20220200045 A1; EFD 12/23/20) (Tsuchida).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Tsuchida discloses a method for manufacturing a positive electrode material of a solid-state battery (e.g., FIG. 3, ¶ 0090–0095), the method comprising: a first compositing to mix a positive electrode active material with a solid electrolyte to generate a first powder (step S1 of FIG. 3 and ¶ 0091 creating cover layer of solid electrolyte 1 atop active material 3; note that such dry mixing with rotary and shear forces would reasonably granulate the composite and, thus, form a powder, as in instant spec.’s ¶ 0017 and 0018); and a second compositing to mix the solid electrolyte with the first powder under a stirring condition different from a stirring condition in the first compositing to generate a second powder (mixing solid electrolyte 2 (which may be the same as electrolyte 1, per ¶ 0082) with the composite at lower shearing force and speed in step S2 of FIG. 3 and ¶ 0093; again, such would reasonably further granulate into a “second powder” via the substantially similar dry-mixing with shear and rotary forces, as in instant spec.), wherein the second compositing has a stirring speed slower than a stirring speed in the first compositing (¶ 0093).
As noted above, in the second step Tscuhida discloses a lower shear force (¶ 0029, 0093), which is a product of the load power and processing time (¶ 0092), to embed the second electrolyte into the cover layer formed by the first electrolyte (¶ 0029), though Tsuchida fails to explicitly articulate a shorter stirring time in the second compositing than in the first compositing.
The skilled artisan would recognize, however, that some processing time must be chosen to be able to perform the second compositing and would further understand that only three solutions for the time generally exist relative to the first compositing: the second time must be the same as, longer, or shorter than the first step. Considering that Tsuchida is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely manufacturing positive active material for solid batteries, in conforming to Tsuchida’s desire for second compositing at lower energy—which directly correlates with processing time—it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely explore a shorter stirring time during the second compositing with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful composite with the second solid electrolyte embedded into the first electrolyte, as Tsuchida desires (see also MPEP 2143 (E.)).
It is submitted that the above disclosure further reads on claim 3; i.e., the second compositing has a shear force smaller than a shear force in the first compositing (¶ 0093; see also ¶ 0029).
Regarding claim 7, Tsuchida discloses the method for manufacturing a positive electrode material according to claim 1, further comprising a slurry generating to mix the second powder with an auxiliary dispersion medium containing a conductive aid (see forming positive electrode (¶ 0095) via dispersing mixture into dispersant, which may contain conductive aid, in electrode-forming step in ¶ 0065).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Tsuchida discloses the method for manufacturing a positive electrode material according to claim 1.
As addressed above, Tsuchida discloses a higher shearing force in the first compositing (¶ 0093) and further discloses that such can be adjusted by varying parameters such as rotation speed—which is slower in the second compositing (¶ 0093)—and processing time (¶ 0103), but, in being unconcerned with the specific speed and time, Tsuchida fails to explicitly disclose that a stirring speed in the first compositing is between a peripheral speed of 60 m/s and 100 m/s, and a stirring time of the stirring speed in the stirring speed in the first compositing is between 50 minutes and 70 minutes.
The skilled artisan would recognize, however, that Tsuchida’s first (higher-speed) compositing must be fast enough to achieve the desired electrolytic cover layer (¶ 0091), whereas stirring too fast could risk damaging the composite (as suggested by Tsuchida’s desire to avoid material deformation in ¶ 0092). Similarly, the stirring must occur long enough to form the cover layer, whereas stirring too long would necessarily delay processing. To balance each set of effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the respectively recited ranges by routinely optimizing the first compositing’s stirring speed and time (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 10, Tsuchida discloses a method for manufacturing a positive electrode material of a solid-state battery (e.g., FIG. 3, ¶ 0090–0095), the method comprising: a first compositing to mix a positive electrode active material with a solid electrolyte to generate a first powder (step S1 of FIG. 3 and ¶ 0091 creating cover layer of solid electrolyte 1 atop active material 3; note that such dry mixing with rotary and shear forces would reasonably granulate the composite and, thus, form a powder, as in instant spec.’s ¶ 0017 and 0018); and a second compositing to mix the solid electrolyte with the first powder under a stirring condition different from a stirring condition in the first compositing to generate a second powder (mixing solid electrolyte 2 (which may be the same as electrolyte 1, per ¶ 0082) with the composite at lower shearing force and speed in step S2 of FIG. 3 and ¶ 0093; again, such would reasonably further granulate into a “second powder” via the substantially similar dry-mixing with shear and rotary forces, as in instant spec.), wherein the second compositing has a shear force smaller than a shear force in the first compositing (Id.; see also ¶ 0029).
As noted above, in the second step Tscuhida discloses a lower shear force (¶ 0029, 0093), which is a product of the load power and processing time (¶ 0092), to embed the second electrolyte into the cover layer formed by the first electrolyte (¶ 0029), though Tsuchida fails to explicitly articulate a shorter stirring time in the second compositing than in the first compositing.
The skilled artisan would recognize, however, that some processing time must be chosen to be able to perform the second compositing and would further understand that only three solutions for the time generally exist relative to the first compositing: the second time must be the same as, longer, or shorter than the first step. Considering that Tsuchida is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely manufacturing positive active material for solid batteries, in conforming to Tsuchida’s desire for second compositing at lower energy—which directly correlates with processing time—it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely explore a shorter stirring time during the second compositing with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful composite with the second solid electrolyte embedded into the first electrolyte, as Tsuchida desires (see also MPEP 2143 (E.)).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Tsuchida discloses the method for manufacturing a positive electrode material according to claim 10.
As addressed above, Tsuchida discloses a higher shearing force in the first compositing (¶ 0093) and further discloses that such can be adjusted by varying parameters such as rotation speed—which is slower in the second compositing (¶ 0093)—and processing time (¶ 0103), but, in being unconcerned with the specific speed and time, Tsuchida fails to explicitly disclose that a stirring speed in the first compositing is between a peripheral speed of 60 m/s and 100 m/s, and a stirring time of the stirring speed in the stirring speed in the first compositing is between 50 minutes and 70 minutes.
The skilled artisan would recognize, however, that Tsuchida’s first (higher-speed) compositing must be fast enough to achieve the desired electrolytic cover layer (¶ 0091), whereas stirring too fast could risk damaging the composite (as suggested by Tsuchida’s desire to avoid material deformation in ¶ 0092). Similarly, the stirring must occur long enough to form the cover layer, whereas stirring too long would necessarily delay processing. To balance each set of effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the respectively recited ranges by routinely optimizing the first compositing’s stirring speed and time (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchida et al. (US 20220200045 A1) (Tsuchida), as applied to claim 1, in view of Yamada et al. (US 20160020487 A1) (Yamada).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Tsuchida discloses the method for manufacturing a positive electrode material according to claim 1.
Tsuchida, as noted above, discloses that the first and second solid electrolytes—in the first and second compositings, respectively—may be the same and may be chosen from electrolytes such as sulfides (¶ 0041/0042, 0082) but fails to explicitly embody a sulfide electrolyte in the above-cited embodiment and, thus, that the solid electrolyte is a sulfide-based solid electrolyte.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely employ a sulfide as Tsuchida’s solid electrolyte with the reasonable expectation of achieving a successful, composite active material, as suggested by Tsuchida.
Tsuchida further exemplarily discloses several types of positive active materials (¶ 0054) yet, while appearing unconcerned with the specific material, fails to explicitly articulate that the positive electrode active material is coated with another solid electrolyte different from the sulfide-based solid electrolyte, and the another solid electrolyte is an oxide-based solid electrolyte.
Yamada, in teaching a positive active material coated with a highly reactive layer and contacting a sulfide solid electrolyte (¶ 0011, FIG. 1), demonstrates that it is well known, when selecting a positive active material, to either directly employ the material or pre-coat the material with, e.g., an oxide of elements such as Zr, Mg, or Al (¶ 0059).
Yamada is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely solid-electrolyte-containing positive active material.
As Yamada recognizes the equivalence of pre-coated and bare active material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely employ an active material at least partially pre-coated with, e.g., an oxide of Zr or Mg—and, thus, an oxide-based solid electrolyte—as Tsuchida’s active material, as suggested by Yamada, with the reasonable expectation of producing a successful active material suitable for further solid-electrolyte coating, as suggested by Yamada.
Thus, modified Tsuchida would disclose that the positive electrode active material is coated with another solid electrolyte different from the solid electrolyte (via Yamada), wherein the solid electrolyte is a sulfide-based solid electrolyte (Tsuchida’s sulfide), and the another solid electrolyte is an oxide-based solid electrolyte (Yamada’s oxide).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 8–12 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Tsuchida, in specifying that the processing energy per unit weight in the first mixing step is greater than in the second mixing step, fails to disclose or suggest that the second compositing’s stirring time is shorter than the first’s. Examiner respectfully disagrees because although not specifying the first and second stirring times, as explained above, Tsuchida discloses that the second compositing involves lower shearing force, a product of the load power and processing time.
One of ordinary skill would realize, then, that some processing time must be chosen to be able to perform the second compositing and would further understand that only three solutions for the time generally exist relative to the first step: the second time must be the same as, longer, or shorter than the first step. In conforming to Tsuchida’s desire for second compositing at lower energy—which directly correlates with processing time—Examiner submits that the skilled artisan would have routinely explored a shorter stirring time during the second compositing and reasonably expected to produce a successful composite with the second solid electrolyte embedded into the first electrolyte, as Tsuchida desires (see also MPEP 2143 (E.)), absent secondary considerations. As Applicant is yet to rebut this assertion, the rejection is maintained.
For new claims 8–12, see the new grounds of rejection above.
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 JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/24/2026