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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction of Inventions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I. Claims 1-7 in the reply filed on June 11, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that multiple groups can be searched and examined together without undue burden. This is not found persuasive because the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to divergent subject matter between the product and a method, and further require a different field of search, such as heat-treatment of the intermediate in an oxygen atmosphere, as disclosed in Invention II. Furthermore, the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classifications, as aforenoted in the Requirement for Restriction/Election mailed on April 17, 2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on June 11, 2026.
Election of Species
Claims 6-7 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 11, 2026.
The Examiner notes that claims 6-7 are directed to the non-elected species B of a shell portion comprising a first shell comprising a first material and a second shell comprising a second shell. Meanwhile, the elected species A, of claims 1-5, is directed to a single shell portion comprising a first material and second material. Absent pervasive circumstances, the Examiner will treat claims 1-5 as being directed to an embodiment comprising a single shell comprising a mixture of the first and second material.
Applicant’s election of Species A in the reply filed on June 11, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement – specifically the Species component, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Statements Applicable to Restriction of Inventions and/or Election of Species
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “10” has been used to designate both the composite particle 10 in FIG. 2 (see (0053)) and the second embodiment composite particle 10’ in FIG. 3 (see (0071)). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by T.U. US-20150024280-A.
Regarding claim 1, T.U. teaches a cathode for an all-solid-state battery, comprising:
a composite particle (10); and
a sulfide-based solid electrolyte ((0026), "sulfide-based solid electrolyte"), wherein
the composite particle comprises a core portion (12) comprising a cathode active material ((0010)), "active material main body 12") and
a shell portion (11) coated onto the core portion,
and the shell portion comprises:
a first material represented by Chemical Formula 1 ((0042), "Li3BO3") and
a second material represented by Chemical Formula 2 ((0042), "Li3PO4"):
Regarding claim 2, T.U. teaches the cathode of claim 1, wherein
the cathode active material comprises a compound represented by Chemical Formula 3 ((0044), "LiCo1/3Ni1/3Mn1/3O2")).
Regarding claim 3, T.U. teaches the cathode of claim 1, wherein
a thickness of the shell portion is about 0.5 nm to 50 nm ((0043), "The thickness of the reaction suppressing layer is preferably about 1 to 100 nm, and more preferably about 1-20 nm").
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over T.U. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of J.M. US-20250054953-A1.
Regarding claim 4, T.U. teaches the cathode of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the shell portion comprises the first material and the second material in a mass ratio of about 1:0.25 to 1:4.
J.M. teaches wherein:
“a weight ratio of the first coating layer to the core including a lithium nickel-based oxide may be in a range of 100:0.5 to 100:5, specifically 100:1 to 100:3” ((0036)).“the second coating layer may be included in a range of 0.1 wt % to 2 wt %, specifically 0.5 wt % to 1.5 wt % based on the weight of the positive electrode active material”, (0040).
The Examiner notes that J.M therefore teaches a shell portion wherein the mass of:
A material A is 0.5 to 5% of the weight of the core, and
Another material B is approximately 0.1 to 1.5% of the core.
Therefore, J.M. teaches wherein the shell portion comprises the first material and the second material in a mass ratio of about 1:0.25 to 1:4.
The Examiner notes that the weight of the shell portion is very small, thus allowing the approximation that the weight of the core is equal to the weight of the composite particle.
Modification of the disclosure of T.U. by inclusion of a first and second material within a claimed mass ratio, as suggested by the disclosure of J.M, would benefit the disclosure of T.U. by ensuring the coating layer functions as intended ((0040)), while preventing increased resistance and production costs ((0037)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing of the present disclosure to modify the disclosure of T.U. by inclusion of a first and second material within a claimed mass ratio, as suggested by the disclosure of J.M.
Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over T.U. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of J.M..
Regarding claim 5, T.U. teaches the cathode of claim 1, but is silent on wherein:
the composite particle comprises an amount of about 97 wt % to 99.99 wt % of the core portion and
an amount of about 0.01 wt % to 3 wt % of the shell portion,
based on the total weight of the composite particle.
J.M. teaches a shell portion that comprises:
A material A that is 0.5 to 5% of the weight of the core, and
Another material B that is approximately 0.1 to 1.5% weight of the core.
The Examiner notes that the weight of the shell portion is very small, thus allowing the approximation that the weight of the core is equal to the weight of the composite particle.
Therefore, J.M. teaches a shell portion comprising the sum of the material A and material B, or 0.6-6.5% weight of the core.
Therefore, modified T.U. teaches wherein the composite particle comprises an amount of 0.6-6.5% weight, encompassing the claim range between 0.6-3% weight, of the shell portion.
Absent pervasive circumstances, it follows that the core portion of the composite particle is the remainer of the composite particle without the shell portion.
Therefore, modified T.U. teaches a core portion comprising the difference of the entire composite particle and the sum of the material A and material B, or 100%-(0.6-6.5%). This implies the core portion comprises 93.5%-99.4% of the composite particle.
Therefore, modified T.U. teaches wherein the composite particle comprises an amount of 93.5-99.4% weight, encompassing the claim range between 97-99.4% weight, of the core portion.
Modification of the disclosure of T.U. by inclusion of a shell portion with a claimed mass relative to the core portion, as suggested by the disclosure of J.M, would benefit the disclosure of T.U. by ensuring the coating layer functions as intended ((0040)), while preventing increased resistance and production costs ((0037)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing of the present disclosure to modify the disclosure of T.U. by inclusion of a first and second material within a claimed mass ratio, as suggested by the disclosure of J.M.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN M ABELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9302. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM U.S. EST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/EVAN M ABELSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights