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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka (WO Publication 2020-066323, U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0328292 will be used as an English translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Otsuka discloses an all-solid battery comprising: a positive electrode 30, a solid electrolyte layer 50, and a negative electrode 40, wherein the negative electrode can comprise lithium titanium oxide and solid electrolyte, and wherein the solid electrolyte comprises a sulfide solid electrolyte (Paragraphs 0036, 0121, 0123). As to claims 3 and 4, Otsuka teaches that the positive electrode can comprise lithium cobalt oxide and a solid electrolyte (Paragraphs 0067, 0073). Regarding claim 6, Otsuka teaches that the sulfide solid electrolyte can be an argyrodite type solid electrolyte (Paragraph 0085).
Otsuka fails to teach that a negative electrode discharge utilization rate is 134 mAh/g or less.
Otsuka teaches that the battery is charged until a battery voltage or 3.1 V is reached with a current value of 0.2 C and constant-voltage charging is performed until a current value reaches 0.02 C with a voltage of 3.1 V followed by discharging until a battery voltage reaches 1.2 V with a current value of 0.2C (Paragraph 0159).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the discharge utilization rate of the battery of Otsuka could be 134 mAh/g or less because the battery comprises the same compositions and layout for the positive electrode, solid electrolyte, and negative electrode as that of the present invention, and thus must have the same properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed on 3/17/2026, overcome the 35 USC 112 rejection that was presented in the last Office Action. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/17/2026, regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a newly found prior art reference.
Applicant argues that Mishima teaches away from the use of a sulfide solid electrolyte and thus cannot be combined with Li. The new reference, Otsuka, is now being used to teach an all-solid battery that comprises the same active materials along with an argyrodite sulfide solid electrolyte. Thus, Otsuka teaches all of the components of the battery, and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the battery would have the same properties as that of the present invention due to the similarities in materials.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY L RAYMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-6545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am-6 pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
BRITTANY L. RAYMOND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1722
/BRITTANY L RAYMOND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights