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 Status
This office action is in response to the remarks submitted 1/9/2026.
The preliminary amendment of 9/23/2025 has been entered, and examined in this office action. As such this office action is a non-final.
Claims 1-20 are examined in this office action.
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, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Tonegawa et al. (JP 2021172545 A).
As to claim 1, Tonegawa et al. discloses a composite layer (positive electrode layer 112), comprising:
particles of a cathode active material (CAM) [0060];
a solid electrolyte [0060]; and
a carbon fiber coated with an oxide material [0060]-(composite material I-which is formed of a carbon fiber with an oxide coating such as lithium oxide more specifically lithium titanate or lithium niobate [0012]), wherein the oxide material contains lithium and can transport lithium ion in the cathode composite layer (lithium oxide, lithium titanate or lithium niobate)[0012].
As to claim 2, Tonegawa et al. discloses the composite layer of claim 1, wherein the oxide material coated on the carbon fiber has a thickness of 5-10 nm [0021] falling entirely in the claimed range of 1- 70 nm.
As to claim 3, Tonegawa et al. discloses the composite layer of claim 1, wherein the oxide material coated on the carbon fiber has a thickness of 5-10 nm [0021] falling entirely in the claimed range of 2- 50 nm.
As to claim 7, Tonegawa et al. discloses the composite layer of claim 1, wherein the oxide material is an inorganic oxide material (lithium titanate or lithium niobate-[0012]).
As to claim 8, Tonegawa et al. discloses the composite layer of claim 7, wherein the inorganic oxide material is selected from the group consisting of LiNbO3 (lithium niobate), Li2TiO3, Li4Ti5O12 (lithium titanate) [0032].
As to claim 10, Tonegawa et al. discloses the composite layer of claim 1, wherein the solid electrolyte is a sulfur-containing inorganic electrolyte [0036, 86].
As to claim 11, Tonegawa et al. discloses the composite layer of claim 1, wherein the solid electrolyte is Li3PS4 [0086]
As to claim 13, Tonegawa et al. discloses the composite layer of claim 1, wherein the CAM is at least one selected from the group consisting of LiCO2, LiMnO2, LiNiO2, LiVO2, LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3O2 [0060].
As to claim 14, Tonegawa et al. discloses the composite layer of claim 1, wherein the particles have an average diameter of 1-15 micrometer (10 μm –[0087]).
As to claim 15, Tonegawa discloses an all solid-state battery (ASSB) [0088], comprising:
a) the composite layer of claim 1 as a positive electrode [0087];
b) a negative electrode [0086]; and
c) a solid electrolyte layer between the positive electrode and the negative electrode [0088].
As to claim 16, Tonegawa et al. discloses the ASSB of claim 15, wherein the solid electrolyte layer [0085] is the same as the solid electrolyte in the cathode composite layer [0085, 0087] (Li2PS4).
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(s) 4-6, 9,12, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonegawa et al. (JP 2021172545 A).
As to claims 4-6, Tonegawa discloses the range amounts per 100 part of active material in [0061-65], thus after calculations the range of each component is given for the positive electrode layer/composite layer below.
amount
low
high
low
low %
high
high %
range %
[0061]
active material
100
100
67%
28%
28-67
[0061]
composite
0.1
50
0%
14%
0-14
[0062]
solid electrolyte
50
200
33%
55%
33-55
[0063]
conductive material
0
3
0%
1%
0-1
[0065]
binder
0
10
0%
3%
0-3
total =
150.1
363
As to claim 4, Tonegawa discloses composite layer of claim 1, wherein the particles of CAM have a weight percentage 28-67% in the composite layer which overlaps the claimed range of greater than 65%.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior
art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 5, Tonegawa discloses the composite layer of claim 1, wherein the carbon fiber coated with the oxide material has a weight percentage between 0.0001wt% and 14 wt.% in the composite layer, which overlaps the claimed range of 0.01-5wt. %.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 6, Tonegawa discloses the composite layer of claim 1, wherein the carbon fiber coated with the oxide material has a weight percentage between 0.0001wt% and 14 wt.% thus overlapping the claimed range of 1.0 wt.% and 3.0wt% in the composite layer.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior
art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 9, Tonegawa et al. discloses the composite layer of claim 7, wherein the inorganic oxide is stable over a voltage ranging from 1.9V to 5.0V, since a battery is charged up to 4.2V [0090].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior
art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 12. Tonegawa et al. discloses the composite layer of claim 1, wherein the solid electrolyte has a weight percentage between 33-55 wt. percent which overlaps the claimed range of 1 wt.% and 35wt% in the composite layer (see chart above).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior
art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 17, Tonegawa et al. discloses the ASSB of claim 15, wherein the composite layer comprises a weight percentage 28-67% in the composite layer which overlaps the claimed range of greater than 65%.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior
art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claims 18-19, Tonegawa disclose the ASSB of claim 17, but does not disclose:
wherein the ASSB has an initial discharging specific capacity of at least 180 mAh/g at a discharge rate of 0.5C (claim 18); or wherein the ASSB has an initial discharging specific capacity of at least 200 mAh/g at a discharge rate of 0.1C (claim 19).
However, these are considered a manner of operating the device and a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987.)
As to claim 20, Tonegawa disclose the ASSB of claim 17, but does not disclose
when the ASSB is charged to 4.25 V and discharged to 2.8 V for 20 cycles at 45°C at 0.1C for cycles 1 and 2, 0.33C for cycles 3 and 4, 1.OC for cycle 5, and 0.5C for cycles 6 to 20, the ASSB exhibits a specific capacity of at least 180 mAh/g and a cycle life retention rate of at least 95% at the 20th cycle, wherein the cycle life retention rate is the ratio of the discharge specific capacity at the 20th cycle to the initial discharge specific capacity at 0.5C at 45°C.
However the limitations of "is charged to 4.25 V and discharged to 2.8 V for 20 cycles at 45°C at 0.1C for cycles 1 and 2, 0.33C for cycles 3 and 4, 1.0C for cycle 5, and 0.5C for cycles 6 to 20, the ASSB exhibits a specific capacity of at least 180 mAh/g and a cycle life retention rate of at least 95% at the 20* cycle, wherein the cycle life retention rate is the ratio of the discharge specific capacity at the 20* cycle to the initial discharge specific capacity at 0.5C at 45°C" are considered a manner of operating the device and a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 2, filed 1/9/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under USC 102 or USC103 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 Tonegawa et al. as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA J LAIOS whose telephone number is (571)272-9808. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/Maria Laios/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights