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 .
Response to Amendment
This is a final Office Action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 06/29/2026. Claims 1, 3 and 4 are amended. Claim 5 is cancelled. Claims 7-12 are withdrawn. Claim 1-4 and 6 are pending in the current Office Action.
The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are maintained, with the rejection of claim 1 rewritten to address the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, paragraph 2, filed 06/29/2026, with respect to Applicant's assertion that Kubo fails to describe or otherwise render obvious the claimed features of amended claim 1 have been fully considered but are considered moot as the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection in view of Kubo of Claims 1-2 and 6 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's further arguments filed 6/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the cited references fail to describe or otherwise render obvious the features recited by amended claim 1: “a ratio of an area of a single peak based on the PSD analysis to a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the single peak is 23 to 40”.
Specifically, Applicant asserts that Han is entirely silent regarding the stated claim limitation and does not describe or suggest an area of a single peak distribution or any relationship between such an area and a peak height, nor describe or suggest the claimed ratio of 23 to 40 (see Applicant’s remarks, pg. 6, first full para.).
As addressed on pg. 5-6 of the previous Office Action, Han discloses a desire for uniform particle distribution as well measuring and controlling the FWHM and FWHM/maximum height ratio for uniform particle distribution to achieve a balance between improved lifespan characteristics and negative performance characteristics. Not only would a skilled artisan recognize the single peak disclosed by Han necessarily possesses an area, but a skilled artisan would further appreciate controlling the area of the single peak and the ratio between the area and the FWHM out of a desire for uniform particle distribution and its resulting benefits. Therefore, while Han doesn’t explicitly disclose an area of the single peak nor a ratio of an area of the single peak to a FWHM of the single peak, Han provides motivation for why one would reasonably arrive at the claimed limitations through controlling for uniform particle distribution.
Applicant further argues that the present application demonstrates the criticality of the claimed range (see Applicant’s remarks, pg. 6, second full para.).
The Examiner acknowledges that, in Table 3, Examples 1-3, with a peak area/full width at half maximum of 23 to 38.4, higher 2C discharge capacity is exhibited. Thus, criticality is established for a range of 23 to 38.4, while the claimed range is 23 to 40. However, the Examiner notes that the claimed cathode active material including lithium and a transition metal is relatively broad whereas Applicant’s most superior results appear to occur when LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2, specifically, is used (See instant specification, pg. 13, line 17, pg. 15, lines 1-3). Thus, claim 1 still appears to be incommensurate in scope with the invention argued to provide Applicant’s alleged superior results and Applicant’s argument regarding criticality is not fully persuasive, for at least the above discussed reasons and other differences in scope as described in at least the cited instant specification passages that appear to be required to achieve the alleged superior results.
In light of the discussion above, the rejection made in view of Han and Kubo is maintained with the rejection rewritten below to address the 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 20240282953 A1).
Regarding claim 1 and 4, Han discloses a cathode active material ([0001]) capable of use for an all-solid-state battery, comprising lithium (i.e. lithium transition metal complex oxide, Formula 1, [0045]) and a transition metal (Formula 1, [0045-00046]) wherein the cathode active material has a single peak in the range of 1 µm to 10 µm based on particle size distribution (PSD) analysis (Fig. 1, Examples 2 and 3).
Han further discloses a desire for uniform particle distribution as lifespan characteristics and increased resistance are related to the size uniformity of particles ([0036]).
Han further discloses excessive post-treatment processes such as grinding after firing which enables uniform particle distribution may result in an increase in fine powders which can have negative effects on performance characteristics ([0009-0010]).
Han further discloses measuring and controlling the FWHM, FWHM/maximum height ([0037-0040]), as well as the particle distribution expressed as (D90-D10)/D50 ([0041-0043]) as a way to control particle size distribution since a uniform particle size distribution affects the performance of lithium secondary batteries, such as improved lifespan and efficiency ([0038]).
A skilled artisan would recognize that in possessing a single peak based on PSD analysis, Han must necessarily and inherently possess an area belonging to the single peak. A skilled artisan would further appreciate the control of the area of the single peak and ratio of an area to the FWHM of the single peak out of a desire to balance uniform particle distribution with limiting post-treatment processes.
Therefore, while Han does not explicitly disclose a cathode active material with an area of the single peak based on PSD analysis of 45 to 60, as claimed in claim 4, or a ratio of an area of the single peak to a FWHM of the single peak of 23 to 40, as claimed in claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have arrived at the claimed ranges with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a satisfactory cathode active material for an all-solid-state battery.
Regarding claim 2, Han discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Han discloses the lithium transition metal complex oxide may have a composition of Formula 1: Lia[M1-bXb]Oc-dQd-- where M is NixCoyMnz (Han, [0045-0051]). Han further discloses exemplary embodiments with the composition Li(Ni0.86Co0.07-Mn0.07)O2 (Han, [0060-0063], Fig. 1, Examples 2 and 3) which is well within the scope of the claimed cathode active material taught in the instant specification (Chemical Formula 1, pg. 6, lines 4-15).
Regarding claim 3, Han discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Han further discloses the cathode active material wherein the single peak has a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of 3.00 and 2.34 for Examples 2 and 3, respectively, both of which are within the claimed range of 1 to 3.5 (Han, Table 1).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 20240282953 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kubo et al. (US 20110045348 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Han discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Han discloses a cathode capable of use for an all-solid-state battery comprising the cathode material of claim 1, as rendered obvious above, but is silent regarding a sulfide-based solid electrolyte.
Kubo teaches a similar cathode active material for an all-solid-state battery where the solid electrolyte material may include a sulfide-based solid electrolyte, oxide-based solid electrolyte, polymer solid electrolyte, and so forth, but the sulfide-based solid electrolyte is preferable ([0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected a sulfide-based solid electrolyte for the solid electrolyte of the all-solid-state battery from the finite list of options with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a satisfactory all-solid-state battery.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ESTHER J TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3479. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/E.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 8/14/2026
Prosecution Insights