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 .
Summary
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted December 24, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1-2, and 4 are amended and claim 7 is new, resulting in claims 1-7 pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitation "the positive electrode material particle" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpretated as meaning “the positive electrode active material particle”, pending further clarification from applicant.
Claims 2-7 are indefinite as they depend from an indefinite base and fail to cure the deficiencies of said claim.
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, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebisuzaki (US 10,854,880 B2) in view of Nakamura (Nakamura, H. et al. Dry coating of active material particles with sulfide solid electrolytes for an all-solid-state lithium battery. Journal of Power Sources. 448, 227579. Available online December 11, 2019).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Ebisuzaki teaches an all-solid-state battery (Ebisuzaki claim 1) comprising: a power generation element (laminated body, Ebisuzaki claim 1) and a restraint member (restraining member, Ebisuzaki claim 1), wherein the power generation element includes a positive electrode layer (cathode active material layer), a solid electrolyte layer (solid electrolyte layer), and a negative electrode layer (anode active material layer) (Ebisuzaki claim 1) and the solid electrolyte layer is interposed between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer (Ebisuzaki claim 1, “in this order”).
Ebisuzaki teaches the restraining member applying a pressure of 0.1 MPa or more and 100 MPa or less to the power generation element, both the positive and negative electrode layers, and the power generation element as a whole (Ebisuzaki claim 1, Figure). The pressure range of Ebisuzaki substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 1. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Ebisuzaki, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
It is noted that Ebisuzaki only has one Figure, therefore all recitations of “Figure” provided above refer to the Figure presented on page 3 of the Ebisuzaki reference.
Ebisuzaki does not expressly teach a composite particle that includes a positive electrode active material particles and a covering layer.
Ebisuzaki teaches that any positive electrode materials applicable to all-solid-state batteries may be used, including LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 (Ebisuzaki col 7 lines 1-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 as the positive electrode active material particle in the all-solid-state battery of Ebisuzaki. Ebisuzaki further teaches that it is suitable to add a solid electrolyte material, such as Li3PS4 (Ebisuzaki col 7 line 34), to the positive electrode layer (Ebisuzaki col 6 lines 65-67).
Nakamura teaches an all-solid-state battery comprising a composite particle having a core-shell structure that includes a LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 core and a Li3PS4 covering layer in order to improve rate and cycle performance (Nakamura abstract).
Since Ebisuzaki and Nakamura both teach using LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 as a positive electrode active material particle and Li3PS4 as a solid electrolyte material and Nakamura teaches that coating the positive electrode active material particle with a solid electrolyte layer results in improved rate and cycle performance, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 with Li3PS4, thus resulting in a composite particle having a core-shell structure wherein the positive electrode active material particle is a core, the covering layer is a shell, the covering layer covers at least part of a surface of the positive electrode active material particles, and the covering layer includes a sulfide solid electrolyte, in order to improve rate and cycle performance of the all-solid-state battery.
Regarding claim 5, Ebisuzaki in view of Nakamura teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Nakamura further teaches 50 to 95% of the surface of the positive electrode active material particle being covered by the covering layer (Nakamura Fig. 4b shown below, top picture is Mn (NCM) and bottom picture is S (Li3PS4)).
PNG
media_image1.png
339
217
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebisuzaki in view of Nakamura, as applied to claim 1 above, as evidenced by Miyazaki (US 2020/0153035 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Ebisuzaki in view of Nakamura teaches all features of claim 1. As described above, modified Ebisuzaki teaches using LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 as the positive electrode active material particle.
Ebisuzaki is silent regarding the value of “a” during charge/discharge cycles and does not explicitly teach 0 < a < 1. However, Miyazaki teaches that lithium content in a lithium transition metal composite oxide used in a secondary battery varies depending on the charge/discharge state (Miyazaki [198]). Therefore, the limitation of 0 < a < 1 would obviously flow from the charging of the all-solid-state battery of Ebisuzaki since Li ions travel to the anode during charging thus lowering the value of a.
Regarding claim 4, Ebisuzaki in view of Nakamura teaches all features of claims 1 and 2, as described above. Claim 4 does not affirmatively require the all-solid-state battery be at 90% SOC. Therefore, the all-solid-state battery of Ebisuzaki reads on claim 4, as the claim does not further limit the all-solid-state battery taught by Ebisuzaki.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebisuzaki in view of Nakamura, as evidenced by Miyazaki (US 2020/0153035 A1), as applied above for claims 1 and 2, and in further view of Li (Li, T. Degradation Mechanisms and Mitigation Strategies of Nickel Rich NMC Based Lithium Ion Batteries. Electrochemical Energy Reviews. 3, 43-80 (2020)).
Regarding claim 3, Ebisuzaki in view of Nakamura teaches all features of claims 1 and 2, as described above. Modified Ebisuzaki does not teach a chemical composition represented by formula (I) wherein 0.5 ≤ x ≤ 1.
Li teaches that Ni-rich positive electrode active materials, where the stoichiometric amount of Ni is greater than or equal to 0.5, have the advantages of high discharge capacity and increased energy density (Li pg. 44 left column). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the Ni content in the positive electrode active material of modified Ebisuzaki to be within the range of 0.5 ≤ x ≤ 1 in order to obtain a positive electrode active material that results in improved discharge capacity and energy density.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebisuzaki in view of Nakamura, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Zhong (US 2020/0144600 A1) and Muraoka (US 2011/0183173 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ebisuzaki in view of Nakamura teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Ebisuzaki further teaches the power generation element including a positive electrode current collector (cathode current colleting layer, Ebisuzaki claim 1). Ebisuzaki also teaches that it is suitable to add a binder to the positive electrode layer (Ebisuzaki col 6 lines 65-67). Ebisuzaki does not expressly teach the positive electrode current collector being bonded to the positive electrode layer and is silent regarding the peel strength between the positive electrode current collector and the positive electrode layer.
Zhong teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode current collector (cathode current collector) and a positive electrode layer (cathode active material layer) (Zhong claim 1) and that it is desirable to ensure adhesion between the positive electrode layer and the positive electrode current collector (Zhong [50]). Zhong further teaches that the binder content in the positive electrode layer can be tuned to achieve desired adhesion (Zhong [50]).
Muraoka teaches a non-aqueous secondary battery comprising a positive electrode layer and a positive electrode current collector (Muraoka claim 1). Muraoka further teaches a peel strength of 3 N/m to 15 N/m (3 N/m = 0.03 N/cm, 15 N/m = 0.15 N/cm) between the positive electrode current collector and the positive electrode layer being suitable (Muraoka claim 1).
Since Ebisuzaki teaches that it is suitable to add a binder to the positive electrode layer, Zhong teaches that it is desirable to ensure adhesion between the positive electrode layer and positive electrode current collector and that the binder content in the positive electrode layer can be tuned to achieve desired adhesion and Muraoka teaches that a peel strength of 3 N/m to 15 N/m is suitable, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a binder to the positive electrode layer of Ebisuzaki in an amount that results in a peel strength of 3 N/m to 15 N/m, thus resulting in the positive electrode current collector being bonded to the positive electrode layer, in order to obtain an all-solid-state battery with suitable adhesion between the positive electrode layer and the positive electrode current collector.
The peel strength range of Muraoka substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 6. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Muraoka, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Objections
The objection to claim 4 due to informalities is overcome by applicant’s amendments to claim 4 in the response received on December 24, 2025. The objection to claim 4 is withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is overcome by applicant’s amendments to claim 3 in the response received on December 24, 2025. This rejection of claim 3 is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends is overcome by applicant’s amendments to claim 3 in the response received on December 24, 2025. This rejection of claim 3 is withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 102 and 103
The following rejections are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response received December 24, 2025:
Claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doerrer (Doerrer, C. et al. High Energy Density Single-Crystal NMC/Li6PS5Cl Cathodes for All-Solid-State Lithium-Metal Batteries. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces. 13, 37809-37815 (2021)).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doerrer, as evidenced by Miyazaki (US 2020/0153035 A1).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doerrer, in view of Zhong (US 2020/0144600 A1) and Muraoka (US 2011/0183173 A1).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Uchiyama (US 2015/0024280 A1): appears to disclose an all-solid-state battery comprising a power generation element, restraint member, covering layer, and sulfide solid electrolyte (Fig. 6, [13], abstract, claims 1-7).
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 JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789