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 Invention I, drawn to a cathode active material for an all solid state battery, in the reply filed on 2/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/18/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-2, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kubo et al. (US 20110045348 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kubo discloses a cathode active material ([0008]) for an all-solid-state battery (i.e. all solid-state lithium battery, [0008]) comprising lithium (i.e. LiCoO2, [0108]) ; and a transition metal (i.e. Cobalt in LiCoO2, [0108]), 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. 5, Example 1).
Regarding claim 2, Kubo discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Kubo further disclose the cathode active material, LiCoO2, 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 6, Kubo discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Kubo further discloses a cathode for an all-solid-state battery comprising the cathode active material of claim 1 ([0008];[0108]) and a sulfide-based solid electrolyte ([0072];[0108]).
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han et al. (US 20240282953 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 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).
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 20240282953 A1), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Han discloses all limitations as set forth above.
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 5, 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.
Claims 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 further in 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
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-4:30PM.
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
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751