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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species B in the reply filed on 10 June 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 14-16, 22 and 27 are withdrawn until the discovery of allowable subject matter generic to the species.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, 17, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 or 2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US Pub 2016/0043430 cited in IDS).
In regard to claim 1, Lee et al. teach a solid electric conductor (secondary battery 100, including positive electrode 11, negative electrode 13) comprising two discrete populations of particles intermixed, wherein the first population of particles comprises an ionically conducting solid-electrolyte (first solid electrolyte particles 14), and the second population of particles comprises an electrode active material (active material particles 16, 17) (see figure 1 annotated below, paragraphs [0014-0069]).
PNG
media_image1.png
310
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claims 2 and 3, the electrode active material comprises a cathode material 16 or an anode material 17 (figure 1 annotated above, paragraphs [0066-0069]).
In regard to claim 4, the first population of particles and the second population of particles are present in a weight ratio of such as 1:5 (paragraph [0066]), an end point which encompasses the claimed range with sufficient specificity in a manner which anticipates the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
In regard to claim 5, the first population of particles (first solid electrolyte particles) exhibits an average particle size less than 100nm, preferably from 20 nm to 50 nm (paragraph [0030]), an example which falls within the claimed range with sufficient specificity in a manner which anticipates the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
In regard to claim 8, the particles are spherical (see figures) such as specifically spherical natural graphite (paragraph [0086]).
In regard to claims 9-11, Lee et al. teach that the large micron sized active material particles and nanometer sized solid electrolyte particles are mixed together in a slurry and coated on a current collector (paragraphs [0081-0087]) forming particles which are absorbed together as seen in annotated figure above, which anticipates physically absorbing the particles together by a wet-chemically coating process where the first population of particles are physically blended with the second population of particles. In any event, The Examiner notes that claims 9-11 are drawn to products by process. Per MPEP 2113, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) In the instant case, the product set forth in product-by-process claims do not distinguish from the prior art which mixes the particles together in a slurry which will result in the smaller first particle population to adhere to the larger second particle population.
In regard to claim 12, the ionically conducing solid-electrolyte comprises materials such as LLTO (paragraph [0041]).
In regard to claim 17 and 18, the electrode active material is nickel rich such as LiNiO2 (paragraph [0067]) an example which falls within the claimed range with sufficient specificity in a manner which anticipates the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
In regard to claim 21, the electrode active material further comprises binder and conductive agent (paragraphs [0063-0069]).
Claims 1, 2, 4-12, 17, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 or 2) as being anticipated by Ichikawa (US Pub 2011/0045355 newly cited).
In regard to claim 1, Lee et al. teach a solid electric conductor (positive electrode 1) comprising two discrete populations of particles intermixed, wherein the first population of particles comprises an ionically conducting solid-electrolyte (first solid electrolyte particles 4), and the second population of particles comprises an electrode active material (active material particles 4) (see figure 1 annotated below, paragraphs [0032-0056]).
PNG
media_image2.png
321
825
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claims 2, the electrode active material comprises a cathode material (figure 1 annotated above, paragraphs [0036]).
In regard to claim 4, the first population of particles and the second population of particles are present in a weight ratio of such as 2:8 (paragraph [0056]), an end point which encompasses the claimed range with sufficient specificity in a manner which anticipates the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
In regard to claim 5, the first population of particles (first solid electrolyte particles) exhibits an average particle size less than 100nm (paragraph [0053]), an example which falls within the claimed range with sufficient specificity in a manner which anticipates the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
In regard to claim 6, the second population of particles (active material) exhibits an average particle size of 1 to 10 microns (paragraph [0037]), an example which falls within the claimed range with sufficient specificity in a manner which anticipates the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
In regard to claim 7, the first population of particles exhibits an average particle size and the second population of particles exhibits an average particle size, and wherein the average particle size of the first population of particles is 1/100 the average particle size of the second population of particles (paragraph [0053]) an example which falls within the claimed range with sufficient specificity in a manner which anticipates the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
In regard to claim 8, the particles are spherical (see figures).
In regard to claims 9-11, Ichikawa teach that the large micron sized active material particles and nanometer sized solid electrolyte particles are mixed together in a slurry and coated on a current collector (paragraphs [0057-0059]) forming particles which are absorbed together as seen in annotated figure above, which anticipates physically absorbing the particles together by a wet-chemically coating process where the first population of particles are physically blended with the second population of particles. In any event, The Examiner notes that claims 9-11 are drawn to products by process. Per MPEP 2113, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) In the instant case, the product set forth in product-by-process claims do not distinguish from the prior art which mixes the particles together in a slurry which will result in the smaller first particle population to adhere to the larger second particle population.
In regard to claim 12, the ionically conducing solid-electrolyte comprises materials such as LLZO (paragraph [0052]).
In regard to claim 17 and 18, the electrode active material is nickel rich such as LiNiO2 (paragraph [0036]) an example which falls within the claimed range with sufficient specificity in a manner which anticipates the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
In regard to claim 21, the electrode active material further comprises binder 6 and conductive agent (paragraphs [0056]).
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.
Claims 6, 7, 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. as applied to claim 1 above.
In regard to claim 6, Lee et al. teach the conductor as applied to claim 1 above, while the no specific particle size of the second population of particles (i.e. active material particles) is explicitly disclosed, it is clear from the prior art disclosure that the electrode active material particles 16 and 17 should be similar in size to the second solid electrolyte conductive particles 15 (figure 1) which are larger than the first solid electrolyte materials 14 and those particles 15, 16, 17 are on the micron scale such as 2 to 10 micron (see paragraph [0032], see Tables 1-3) which is a typical size for electroactive materials, and overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
In regard to claim 7, the prior art obviates micron sized active materials particles 16, 17 as applied to claim 6 above, and nanometer sized solid electrolyte particles 14 (as applied to claim 5 above) which overlaps the claimed range for the ratio of average particle sizes in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
In regard to claims 13, 19 and 20, Lee et al. teach a general formula for a lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxides (NMC) positive electrode active material (paragraph [0067] – note the prior art teaches using the described materials in combination as well) which overlaps the claimed range of materials in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub 2022/0181706 newly cited, teaches a similar arrangement of active material particles and solid electrolyte particles (figure 1) relevant to the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO whose telephone number is (571)270-3635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm 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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights