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 .
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification are to the published application US 2023/0402604 A1, unless stated otherwise. Further, it is noted that italicized text in parentheses recited in any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 indicates the element of the claimed invention to which the preceding prior art element corresponds. Additionally, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and Remarks filed on 24 July 2026 in response to the Non-Final Rejection dated 29 April 2026 have been entered and fully considered, respectively. Claim 5 has been canceled, claims 1-2 have been amended, and claim 10 remains withdrawn. As such, claims 1-4 and 6-9 remain pending and under consideration on the merits.
Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection.
The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) previously set forth are withdrawn due to the present claim amendments, and the Examiner thanks Applicant for correction of the issues.
Applicant’s arguments on Page 5 of the Remarks, directed towards the rejection of claims 1-6 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Greer, are not found persuasive for the following reasons.
Greer discloses that the negative electrode has a structure [element 104, 0120, FIG. 39], wherein pores of the negative electrode are at least partially filled with electrolyte [element 106, 0011, 0120, FIG. 39]. Additionally, Greer discloses that the electrolyte may be, inter alia a solid electrolyte [0089]. An active carbon allotrope material of the negative electrode active material is also porous [0020, 0096]. Greer discloses graphene layers in pyrolytic carbon [0081], wherein pyrolytic carbon materials are curved carbon layers [0125], and may be utilized as the active carbon allotrope material [0097]. Furthermore, Greer discloses a “layer-by-layer” deposition method [0109]. In view of the totality of the foregoing, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the negative electrode active material of Greer is in the form of a layer, wherein pores of the negative electrode active material are filled with solid electrolyte, thereby reading on the claimed negative electrode active material layer structure as claimed.
As stated in the Non-Final Rejection, Greer discloses the graphite carbon allotrope negative electrode active material is in an amount at least 50% by volume [0009, 0031, 0035, 0118-0119] with respect to a total volume of the structure [0009, 0031, 0035, 0118-0120], of which is identical to the lower bound of, and encompasses the upper bound of the claimed range of 50% or more and less than 70%, thereby rendering the range prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)). In view thereof, the graphite carbon allotrope negative electrode active material may be in an amount 50% by volume with respect to a total volume of the structure, of which is within the claimed range of 50% or more and less than 70%, thereby rendering the range prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)), therefore, Greer does not need to “disclose such a technical significance of the upper claimed limit” as argued on Page 5 of the Remarks.
Applicant’s arguments on Pages 5-6 of the Remarks, directed towards the rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as anticipated by, or as obvious over Maekawa, are not found persuasive for the following reasons.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I). The grounds of rejection previously set forth establish that Maekawa’s material is identical or substantially identical to the claimed negative electrode active material composition, where this is sufficient in view of MPEP 2112.01(I) to establish a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness.
Although the active material disclosed in Maekawa is a graphite-Si composite particle rather than a “simple graphite particle” as argued on Page 5 of the Remarks, it is hereby respectfully noted that Applicant has not provided any objective evidence which demonstrates that the material of Maekawa, as set forth in the grounds of rejection, would not necessarily have exhibited an average compressive elastic modulus of 370 MPa or less, as is required to rebut the rejection set forth under 35 U.S.C. 102 and alternatively under 35 U.S.C. 103 on the basis of ‘inherency’. See MPEP 2112.01(I) – "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the Applicant and the prior art are the same, the Applicant has the burden of showing that they are not. Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product”. Further, see MPEP 2112(V) – "The PTO can require an Applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." As indicated by MPEP 2145(I), arguments presented by Applicant cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence required to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness.
Applicant’s arguments on Page 6 of the Remarks, directed towards the rejection of claims 4-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Maekawa in view of Ose, are not found persuasive for the reasons above in ¶6d-6e.
For these reasons above, Applicant's arguments identified above have not been found persuasive.
Moreover, the grounds of rejections below have been updated to reflect the present claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Greer et al. (US 2019/0103600 A1; “Greer”).
Regarding claim 1, Greer discloses a solid-state battery negative electrode (solid-state battery negative electrode) [element 102, 0089-0090] comprises a graphite active carbon allotrope [0006-0024, 0090, 0097-0098] serving as the active material (negative electrode active material) [0006-0007]. The graphite active carbon allotrope and a solid electrolyte together form a structure [element 104, 0007-0024, 0058, 0089, 0120, 0266, 0342, FIG. 39], of which is porous [0011, 0120], as a layer [element 104, 0120, FIG. 39], thereby reading on the negative electrode active material layer defined by claim 1.
Additionally, Greer exemplifies graphite active carbon allotrope undergoing pyrolysis [0098, 0127] and the resultant pyrolytic carbon samples having an aspect ratio (height (long axis) to diameter (short axis)) of 1.4-1.8 for compression [0043, 0045, 0098, 0127, 0139], wherein the inverse aspect ratio (diameter to height) (average aspect ratio; an aspect ratio being defined as a minor axis diameter/a major axis diameter) is 0.55-0.71, of which is within the claimed range, more than 0.5, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Furthermore, the average Young’s modulus (average compressive elastic modulus) of the active carbon allotrope material is 0.16-1.2 GPa [0015, 0043, 0045, 0102], of which converts to 160-1,200 MPa, and overlaps with the claimed range, 370 MPa or less, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Moreover, the graphite carbon allotrope negative electrode active material is in an amount at least 50% by volume [0009, 0031, 0035, 0118-0119] with respect to a total volume of the structure [0009, 0031, 0035, 0118-0120], of which is identical to the lower bound of, and encompasses the upper bound of the claimed range of 50% or more and less than 70%, thereby rendering the range prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)). In view thereof, the graphite carbon allotrope negative electrode active material may be in an amount 50% by volume with respect to a total volume of the structure, of which is within the claimed range of 50% or more and less than 70%, thereby, still rendering the range prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the average compressive elastic modulus defined by claim 2. The active carbon allotrope material has an average Young’s modulus of 160-1,200 MPa, of which overlaps with the claimed range, 59 MPa or more and 370 MPa or less, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the average aspect ratio defined by claim 3. The aspect ratio (short axis to long axis) is 0.55-0.71, of which is within the claimed range, 0.5-0.8, thereby rendering the range prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 4, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Greer further discloses that the porosity of the structure is from 10-95% [0007, 0011, 0120, 0276], of which overlaps with the claimed range, 30% or less, there rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the negative electrode active material defined by claim 6.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein by reference, not repeated for sake of brevity. Greer discloses a solid-state battery (solid-state battery) [0089] formed from a negative electrode (negative electrode) and a positive electrode (positive electrode) [0089, 0120, 0342], with a solid electrolyte (solid electrolyte) [0058, 0089, 0266, 0342, FIG. 39] disposed therebetween [0120, 0260, 0342, FIG. 39], wherein the negative electrode is the solid-state battery negative electrode as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Maekawa et al. (JP 2014/203545 A, herein English machine translation is utilized for all citations; “Maekawa”), in view of Ose et al. (US 2015/0207177 A1; “Ose”).
Regarding claim 1, Maekawa discloses an all-solid-state lithium battery (a solid-state battery) [0006, 0008] comprising a positive electrode [0093, 0099], a solid electrolyte layer [0010, 0061, 0093, 0101], and a negative electrode [0006, 0008], in that order [0093], wherein the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode composite material [0007] used as material for a negative electrode layer (negative electrode active material layer) [0093], of which further includes a substantially spherical composite active material (negative electrode active material) [0010-0011] and a solid electrolyte (solid electrolyte) [0010-0011]. The composite active material has an aspect ratio (major axis/minor axis) of 1-3 [0048], wherein the aspect ratio refers to averaging the major axis/minor axis of at least 100 particles (average aspect ratio) [0048]. Through calculation, the inverse of the aspect ratio; minor axis/major axis (average aspect ratio; an aspect ratio being defined as a minor axis diameter/a major axis diameter), is 0.33-1, of which overlaps with the claimed range, more than 0.5, thereby rendering the range obvious (see MPEP 2144.05(I)). Furthermore, the composite active material has an average particle size (D50; 50% volume particle size) of 2-30 μm [0055].
Maekawa exemplifies use of flake-shaped natural graphite [0111, Example 2] in the negative electrode composite active material [0114-0116, Example 2], wherein the flake-shaped natural graphite underwent a sphericalization process and the resulting mixture was granulated into a spherical shape to obtain a roughly spherical composite active material [0113, Example 2], having an average particle size (D50) of 12 μm and an aspect ratio (major axis/minor axis) of 1.45 [0113, Example 2], of which equates to a minor axis/major axis of 0.69, and is within the claimed range, more than 0.5, thereby rendering the range obvious (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Maekawa remains silent regarding the composite active material has an average compressive elastic modulus of 370 MPa or less and the volume composition ratio of the negative electrode active material relative to a total of materials included in the negative electrode active material layer is 50% or more and less than 70%.
Ose is directed towards an all solid state battery comprising an anode [0097], with an anode active material layer [Abstract, 0029-0031], of which further includes, inter alia, a natural graphite anode active material [0007-0008, 0012, 0027-0028, 0033-0035]. Ose teaches that an anode mixture contains graphite anode active material and sulfide solid electrolyte, in a volume ratio of 6:4 [0097], said alternatively, the anode active material is in an amount 60% by volume with respect to the total anode mixture, of which is within the claimed range, 50-70% by volume.
Maekawa and Ose each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – ----------a solid-state battery negative electrode. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the composite active material of Maekawa in an amount 60% by volume with respect to a total of the active material and the solid electrolyte, in order to obtain an anode for an all solid state battery that exhibits high charging capacity, as taught and exhibited by Ose [Ose, 0094-0097, 0108], wherein the aforementioned content amount is within the claimed volume composition ratio range, 50-70%, thereby rendering the range obvious (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
In view of the modification set forth above, the composite active material of Maekawa as modified by Ose (hereinafter “modified Maekawa”) would have been substantially identical or identical to the claimed and disclosed negative electrode active material in Applicant's Specification in terms of comprising:
(i) flake-shaped natural graphite as the composite active material in the negative electrode composite material, of which corresponds to the disclosed carbon material in Applicant’s Specification [0074, 0090, 0109, 0145, 0147, 0150, 0151], which undergoes
(ii) a sphericalization process, of which corresponds to the disclosed spheroidization treatment in Applicant’s Specification [0090, 0145, 0150], and results in the composite active material having
(iii) an aspect ratio, minor axis/major axis, of 0.33-1, for example 0.69, of which overlaps with and is within, respectively, the claimed and disclosed range, more than 0.5 [Claim 1; Applicant’s Specification 0046, 0079, 0103, 0108, 0116], as well as, 0.5-0.8 [Claim 3; Applicant’s Specification 0046, 0079], and
(iv) an average particle size (D50) of 12 μm, of which correspond to/is within the disclosed median diameter of 5-20 μm in Applicant’s Specification [0089],
(v) the composite active material in an amount 60% by volume with respect to a total of the active material and the solid electrolyte, of which is within the claimed and disclosed range, 50% or more and less than 70% [Claim 1, Applicant’s Specification 0048, 0070], wherein
(vi) Applicant’s Specification indicates that the average elastic modulus of the negative electrode active material is ultimately calculated based off of five negative electrode active materials each having a size close to the determined median diameter, thereby having a strong initial impact on the average elastic modulus value [0111-0113].
Given that the composite active material of modified Maekawa is substantially identical or identical to the claimed and disclosed negative electrode active material in terms of the foregoing elements (i)-(vi), it stands to reason, and there is a strong expectation, that the composite active material of modified Maekawa would have necessarily exhibited an average compressive elastic modulus of 370 MPa or less, as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, modified Maekawa is silent regarding the composite active material has an average compressive elastic modulus of 59 MPa or more and 370 MPa or less.
In view of the totality of the foregoing, the composite active material of modified Maekawa is substantially identical or identical to the claimed and disclosed negative electrode active material in terms of the foregoing elements (i)-(vi), in ¶27 above. As such it stands to reason, and there is a strong expectation, that the composite active material of modified Maekawa would have necessarily exhibited an average compressive elastic modulus of 59 MPa or more and 370 MPa or less, as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 above, reads on the average aspect ratio defined by claim 3. The composite active material has an aspect ratio (minor axis/major axis) of 0.69, and is within the claimed range, more than 0.5 and 0.8 or less, thereby rendering the range obvious (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 4, modified Maekawa teaches the solid-state battery negative electrode set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
Ose further teaches a voidage (porosity) of the anode active material is not particularly limited, so long as to allow sufficient energy density, and may be 30% or less [0048].
In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the negative electrode layer of Maekawa to have exhibited a porosity of 30% or less, as taught by Ose, in order to allow for sufficient energy density [Ose, 0048, 0082], wherein the aforementioned range is identical/overlaps with the claimed range, 30% or less, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the negative electrode active material defined by claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, modified Maekawa further teaches that the solid electrolyte used in the negative electrode composite material is a sulfide-based solid electrolyte (solid sulfide electrolyte) [Maekawa, 0061-0068], and may be glass ceramic [Maekawa, 0063].
Regarding claim 8, in view of the rejection of claim 7 above, modified Maekawa further teaches that the raw materials for the sulfide-based solid electrolyte are preferably Li2S and P2S5 (Li2S-P2S5-based glass ceramic electrolyte) [Maekawa, 0063-0067].
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference (not repeated for sake of brevity), reads on the solid-state battery defined by claim 9.
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 l.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 l.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR l.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 JENNA X. COLTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571)272-8935. 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.
/JENNA X. COLTON/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/MICHAEL C. ROMANOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights