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 Status
Claims 1, 2, 3, and 7 have been amended. The rejections of claims 1, 2, 3, and 7 have been modified as required by the amendment. Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 26, 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The first step of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category (MPEP 2106.03). The claim recites at least one step or act, including mixing a positive electrode active material with a conductive aid to generate a first powder. Thus, the claim is to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Claims 2, 3, and 7 recite that a ‘quality evaluation is performed’ and further define the ‘quality evaluation’ as a ‘determination’ and ‘evaluation’ based on satisfying a ‘predetermined requirement’. Mental processes are defined as concepts performed in the human mind such as observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. These steps appear to be just observations, determinations, or comparisons, and would be mental steps that a person could perform in their mind. Therefore, the claims recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The mixing step is performed in claim 1 and claims 2, 3, and 7 very generally recite any quality evaluation and that when any predetermined requirement is satisfied that the third mixing is performed. First, the claims don’t relate the predetermined requirement to the quality evaluation, so this predetermined requirement could be unrelated to the abstract idea. Therefore, there is no application of the abstract idea. Even if the claims recited that the predetermined requirement was based on the quality evaluation, the mixing is performed in claim 1 regardless so this would still just be generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use per MPEP 2106.05(h) or just generally applying the abstract idea per MPEP 2106.05(f), which are not particular practical applications. Obtaining a slurry appears to be a post-solution activity and this would not be considered a practical application but merely an insignificant extra solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claims recite any elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2-3 and 7 require the method steps of claim 1 which include a first mixing, a second mixing, and a third mixing. Mixing steps to manufacture a positive electrode material of a solid-state battery are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g., U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 203/0048124).
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0048124, hereinafter Kadowaki, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0380791, hereinafter Osada.
Regarding claims 1, 5, and 7, Kadowaki teaches a method for manufacturing a positive
electrode material for an all-solid-state lithium-ion battery (instant claim 1) (Kadowaki, [0187]). The positive electrode material is produced by mixing positive electrode active material with a solid electrolyte material to generate a ‘mixed powder’ (instant claim 1) (Kadowaki, [0064]). A positive electrode active material that can be used for this process is nickel cobalt manganese oxide (instant claim 5) (Kadowaki, [0264]) that must have a particle diameter distribution of (D90-D10)/D15 less than or equal to 1.5 before being mixed (instant claim 7) (Kadowaki, [0078]). A solid electrolyte that can be used for this process is a sulfide-based solid electrolyte (instant claim 5) (Kadowaki, [0164]) that must have a particle diameter distribution of (D90-D10)/D15 less than or equal to 2.0 before being mixed (instant claim 7) (Kadowaki, [0084]). Additionally, conductive aids that can be added to the positive electrode active material layer are graphite powder, carbon black, and fibrous carbon materials (instant claim 5) (Kadowaki, [0360]). During the positive electrode production process, a stirring speed is appropriately controlled in order to control various physical properties such as the secondary particle diameter and the pore radius of the finally obtained lithium metal composite oxide (instant claim 1) (Kadowaki, [0253]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the stirring speed can be adjusted during each mixing step in order to maintain the desired physical properties of the positive electrode active material.
However, Kadowaki does not teach initially adding a conductive aid to the positive electrode active material and solid electrolyte before generating the mixed powder as required in claim 1.
It would be obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to separately add carbon to the positive electrode active material and the solid electrolyte because ‘when an appropriate amount thereof is added to the positive electrode active material layer 111, the conductivity inside the positive electrode 110 can be improved, and charging efficiency, discharging efficiency and output characteristics can be
improved’ (Kadowaki, [0361]). Additionally, when too much carbon is added, ‘the binding force
between the positive electrode active material layer 111 and the positive electrode current
collector 112 and the binding force inside the positive electrode active material layer 111 both
decrease, which causes an increase in internal resistance’ (Kadowaki, [0362]). Therefore, it
would be obvious to add conductive aid to the positive electrode active material and the solid
electrolyte separately to ensure thorough mixing while effectively increasing conductivity in the positive electrode.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 6, and 8, Kadowaki teaches a method for manufacturing a positive electrode material for an all-solid-state lithium-ion battery (Kadowaki, [0187]). The
positive electrode material is produced by mixing positive electrode active material with a solid
electrolyte material to generate a ‘mixed powder’ (instant claim 1) (Kadowaki, [0064]). This
mixed powder is used to generate a slurry by mixing a positive electrode active material, a
sintering additive, the above conductive material, the above binder, a plasticizer, and a solvent
(instant claim 6) (Kadowaki, [0371]).
However, Kadowaki fails to teach the use of a dispersion medium (instant claim 2, 3, and 6), specifically butyl butyrate (instant claim 8).
Osada teaches ‘mixing a positive electrode active material, a sulfide-based electrolyte, a
conductive material, and a binder solution (Osada, [0166]). This binder solution consists of a
dispersion medium (Osada, [0052]) that consists essentially of butyl butyrate (Osada, [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add butyl butyrate as a dispersion medium because ‘a
dispersion medium is added in order to adjust solid content and viscosity of the slurry
composition’ (Osada, [0111]) and because ‘the butyl butyrate tends to have a low reactivity
with respect to the sulfide-based solid electrolyte’ (Osada, [0054]).
Regarding claims 2, 3, 4, and 6, Kadowaki teaches a method for manufacturing a positive electrode material for an all-solid-state lithium-ion battery (Kadowaki, [0187]). The
positive electrode material is produced by mixing positive electrode active material with a solid
electrolyte material to generate a ‘mixed powder’ (instant claim 1) (Kadowaki, [0064]). This mixed powder is used to generate a slurry by mixing a positive electrode active material, a
sintering additive, the above conductive material, the above binder, a plasticizer, and a solvent
(instant claim 6) (Kadowaki, [0371]).
However, Kadowaki fails to teach a quality evaluation being performed.
Osada teaches ‘mixing a positive electrode active material, a sulfide-based electrolyte, a conductive material, and a binder solution (Osada, [0166]). This binder solution consists of a dispersion medium (Osada, [0052]) that consists essentially of butyl butyrate (Osada, [0054]). This mixture is then fed with ultrasonic wave by an ultrasonic homogenizer (Osada, [0200]). Finally, the slurry is evaluated by a grind gauge (Osada, [0202]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to perform a quality evaluation to ensure a specific particle
size, in this case a particle size of less than 100 µm (Osada, [0203]). Additionally, one of ordinary
skill in the art would find it is obvious to evaluate each step in a process rather than once or at
the end because one of ordinary skill would appreciate that doing so would ensure thorough
mixing and uniform composition of a mixture and enable one to identify a particular step
compromising quality in order to optimize the process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 2, 3, and 7, the quality evaluation still consists of ‘measuring’ which is just gathering data and therefore considered a mental step and then followed by ‘evaluating’ and ‘determining’ which are all directed to abstract ideas. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-8, Kadowaki teaches that during the positive electrode production process, a stirring speed is appropriately controlled in order to control various physical properties such as the secondary particle diameter and the pore radius of the finally obtained lithium metal composite oxide [0253]. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the stirring speed can be adjusted during each mixing step in order to maintain the desired physical properties of the positive electrode active material. In regards to pre-mixing the conductive aid with the positive electrode active material and the solid electrolyte separately, Kadowaki teaches the positive electrode active material layer containing the mixed powder, a solid electrolyte, a conductive material, and a binder [0357]. In re Gibson, the selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04 IV.C.).
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 Mia K Holbrook whose telephone number is (571)272-9253. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571) 270-5256. 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.
/M.K.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1724 /BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights