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 § 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kagei et al. (US 2012/0012776).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kagei et al. disclose a lithium-based solid electrolyte of a positive electrode active material for use in a lithium secondary battery (see abstract; paragraphs [0020], [0094], [0097], [0109], [0137], and [0155]-[0165] under Examples 1-4; and TABLE 1), in which the lithium-based solid electrolyte includes the following components:
lithium tetraborate (Li2B4O7) in an amorphous, or non-crystalline state (see paragraphs [0097] and [0156]);
water (see paragraph [0156]); and
a lithium salt in the form of (at least) lithium carbonate (Li2CO3) and/or lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) – see paragraphs [0094] and [0109]).
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.
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.
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 3, 6, 9, 12, 13, 19-26, and new claim 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kagei et al. (US 2012/0012776).
Regarding claim 3, Kagei et al. disclose the lithium-based solid electrolyte of independent claim 1, including that 0.4% by weight of lithium tetraborate and water were mixed and stirred to prepare a slurry with a solid content concentration of 25% by weight (see paragraph [0156]), but fail to explicitly disclose a molar ratio of the lithium salt to the lithium tetraborate is 0.001 to 1.5, and a molar ratio of the water to the lithium tetraborate is 3 to 15. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that each of these molar ratios (wherein the molar ratio of the lithium salt to the lithium tetraborate is likely disclosed since this range spans three orders of magnitude) would have been subject to routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of obtaining a slurry with a desired solid content concentration to optimize output characteristics of a positive electrode active material for a lithium battery (see abstract; and paragraph [0020]). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claim 6, although Kagei et al. disclose the lithium-based solid electrolyte of independent claim 1, including that the lithium salt would include (at least) one or more of lithium hydroxide (LiOH), lithium carbonate (Li2CO3), lithium nitrate (LiNO3), lithium oxide (Li2O), other fatty acid lithium and lithium halides, and the like, and/or lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) – see paragraphs [0094] and [0109]), Kagei et al. do not explicitly disclose the claimed Formula (I) of LiN(Rf1SO2)(Rf2SO2), where Rf1 and Rf2 each independently represent a fluorine atom or a perfluoroalkyl group. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Kagei et al. would readily contemplate a substitution of one or more lithium salts that include SO2 groups, as suggested in the phrase “and the like” after the above listing of various lithium salts (see paragraph [0094], while also reciting a fluorine-containing lithium salt of lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) – see paragraph [0109]). In this instance, one of ordinary skill in the art would have conducted routine experimentation among a group of similar lithium salts under an “obvious to try” rationale, in order to optimize output characteristics of the lithium salt for use in a positive electrode active material for a lithium battery (see abstract; and paragraph [0020]). With regard to the types of materials that are suitable for use, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 9, although Kagei et al. disclose the lithium-based solid electrolyte of independent claim 1, Kagei et al. do not disclose that (in an infrared absorption spectrum), a ratio of a maximum absorption intensity in a wave number range of 3,000 to 3,500 cm-1 to a maximum absorption intensity in a wave number range of 800 to 1,600 cm-1 is 1/5 or more. However, since Kagei et al. disclose the lithium-based solid electrolyte of independent claim 1 and render obvious the relative molar ratios (of claim 3) applied to the three components (lithium tetraborate, water, and lithium salt), one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily conducted routine experimentation by any of a variety of instrumental analysis operations (including performing measurements via infrared absorption spectroscopy), and given the teachings of Kagei et al. with respect to applicants’ claims 1 and 3, would have reasonable expectation of success in obtaining the claimed ranges of a ratio of a maximum absorption intensity in a wave number range of 3,000 to 3,500 cm-1 to a maximum absorption intensity in a wave number range of 800 to 1,600 cm-1 is 1/5 or more, wherein further optimization of these ranges would be advantageous for optimizing output characteristics of a positive electrode active material for a lithium battery (see abstract; and paragraph [0020]). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, although Kagei et al. disclose the lithium-based solid electrolyte of independent claim 1, Kagei et al. do not disclose wherein a proportion of a full width at half maximum of a peak in which a chemical shift appears in a range of -100 to +100 ppm in a spectrum obtained in a case where a solid 7Li-NMR measurement is carried out at 120°C is 50% or less with respect to a full width at half maximum of a peak in which a chemical shift appears in a range of -100 to +100 ppm in a spectrum obtained in a case where a solid 7Li-NMR measurement is carried out at 20°C (of claim 12), as well as wherein a spectrum obtained by carrying out a solid 7Li-NMR measurement at 20°C, in a case where a first peak appearing in a range of -100 to +100 ppm is subjected to waveform separation, the lithium-based solid electrolyte has a second peak having a full width at half maximum of 5 ppm or less in a range where a chemical shift is of -3 to +3 ppm, and a ratio of an area intensity of the second peak to an area intensity of the first peak is 0.5% or more (of claim 13). However, since Kagei et al. disclose the lithium-based solid electrolyte of independent claim 1 and render obvious the relative molar ratios applied to the three components (lithium tetraborate, water, and lithium salt) of claim 3, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily conducted routine experimentation by any of a variety of instrumental analysis operations (including performing solid 7Li-NMR measurements at both 20°C and 120°C for comparison of first and second peaks and their corresponding full widths at half maximum), and given the teachings of Kagei et al. with respect to applicants’ claims 1 and 3, would have reasonable expectation of success in obtaining the claimed ranges of -100 to +100 ppm and -3 to +3 ppm with respect to the parameters measured in the solid 7Li-NMR measurements at both 20°C and 120°C, wherein further optimization of these ranges would be advantageous for optimizing output characteristics of a positive electrode active material for a lithium battery (see abstract; and paragraph [0020]). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, although Kagei et al. disclose the lithium-based solid electrolyte of independent claim 1, including its production method (in referring to Examples 1-4 and TABLE 1) that includes the steps of subjecting a lithium-based oxide containing Li and B (lithium tetraborate) to a mechanical milling treatment (including teaching of subjecting the lithium-based oxide (of applicants’ claim 20) prior to any of requirements 1, 2, or 3), mixing a product obtained in the subjecting step with water, and removing water from a dispersion liquid obtained in the mixing step to obtain a lithium-based solid electrolyte, Kagei et al. do not explicitly disclose that the production method satisfies any of the three requirements 1, 2, or 3. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have conducted routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success to add two or more elements of those in the group listed under requirement 1 (including during the mechanical milling treatment), in order to obtain a homogeneous mixture of these two or more elements in the lithium-based oxide disclosed in paragraphs [0097] and [0156] of Kagei et al., for the purpose of optimizing output characteristics of a positive electrode active material for a lithium battery (see abstract; and paragraph [0020]). With regard to the types of materials that are suitable for use, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 21-23, although Kagei et al. disclose the lithium-based solid electrolyte of a positive electrode active material for use in a lithium battery (of independent claim 1), Kagei et al. do not explicitly disclose that the lithium-based solid electrolyte is a coating layer disposed on the positive electrode active material or is the positive electrode active material itself. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that use of the lithium-based solid electrolyte of a positive electrode active material would be readily applied as a coating or used as a base material in the positive electrode active material itself under the rationale of a finite number (two) of predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of optimizing output characteristics of a positive electrode active material for a lithium battery (see abstract; and paragraph [0020]). Moreover, Kagei et al. disclose that the lithium-based solid electrolyte of a positive electrode active material for use in a lithium battery (of independent claim 1), that the lithium-based solid electrolyte would readily be used as a coating layer disposed on the positive electrode active material or as the positive electrode active material itself (in referring to claim 21 above), and that materials that include lithium or carbon would be used for the negative electrode active material (see paragraph [0109]), wherein a sequential order of the positive electrode active material layer, the solid electrolyte layer, and the negative electrode active material would form an all-solid state secondary lithium battery, and at least the positive active material layer contains the lithium-based solid electrolyte according to claim 1.
Regarding claims 24-26, although Kagei et al. disclose the lithium-based solid electrolyte (of independent claim 1), and disclose/suggest the modified positive and negative electrode active materials (of claims 21 and 22) and all-solid state secondary battery (of claim 23), Kagei et al. do not explicitly disclose that an electrode for the all-solid state secondary battery is in the form of a sheet (of claim 24), as a solid electrolyte sheet (of claim 25), or is an electrode comprising an active material layer and a collector (of claim 26). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the electrode for use in the all-solid state secondary battery would be readily selected from a variety of shapes, as well as that a collector (see paragraph [0137]) would be used in combination with the active material layer. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of the electrode to be in the form of a sheet, since modification of shape is merely a design choice. In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, any change in shape is merely a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) and referring to In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding new claim 27, although Kagei et al. disclose the lithium-based solid electrolyte of independent claim 1, including a mixture of lithium tetraborate (Li2B4O7) in an amorphous (non-crystalline) state, water, and a lithium salt in the form of (at least) lithium carbonate (Li2CO3) and/or lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) – see paragraphs [0094], [0097], [0109], and [0156]; and Examples 1-4), Kagei et al. do not explicitly disclose that the water in the mixture would form a hydrated layer on a surface of the lithium tetraborate (Li2B4O7) while the lithium salt is contained in the hydrated layer. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the water contained in the mixture would form a hydrated layer with lithium salt dispersed therein to a certain extent, since the lithium salts of (at least) lithium carbonate (Li2CO3) and/or lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) have a limited degree of water solubility, and thus would be subject to routine optimization by one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success in forming a hydrated layer on a surface of the lithium tetraborate (Li2B4O7), in which formation of a hydrated layer with lithium salt dispersed therein would be advantageous for improving ionic conductivity on a surface of the lithium tetraborate (Li2B4O7), resulting in optimization of output characteristics of the lithium salt for use in a positive electrode active material for a lithium battery (see abstract; and paragraph [0020]).
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the applicants’ amendment and replacement drawing sheets received by the USPTO on July 7, 2026. The replacement drawing sheets overcome the prior objections to the drawings, and the amendments overcome the prior objections to the abstract and specification. Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 14-18 remain withdrawn from consideration as drawn to non-elected inventions. The applicants have added new claim 27. Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 13, and 19-27 are currently under consideration in the application.
Applicants' arguments filed July 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the applicants’ remarks/arguments on page 17 of the amendment, the applicants argue that Kagei et al. do not disclose the “mechanical milling treatment”, and also do not disclose the “amorphous or non-crystalline” lithium tetraborate, thus allegedly not disclosing all features of independent claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the use of a “mechanical milling treatment” would not preclude that the claimed lithium tetraborate would not be in an amorphous or non-crystalline state, as a process of mechanical milling is not claimed in claim 1, but rather the (electrolyte) composition itself. Second, Examples 1-4 of Kagei et al. refer to use of a “wet grinder” (see paragraph [0157]), followed by subjecting a mixed slurry (of the claimed composition) to being granulated and dried (see paragraph [0158]). A process of wet grinding is a subset of “mechanical milling”, with a similarity being a process of breaking down into smaller particles, and with a difference being using water (or an absence of water) in the process. However, since water is present in the claimed composition (electrolyte) of applicants’ independent claim 1, there would be no apparent difference between the claimed lithium tetraborate and that of Kagei et al. to suggest that both compositions would not be in the same state (namely, an amorphous or non-crystalline state), nor that such a property thereof would differ between use of the similar processes of mechanical milling and wet grinding. In view of the 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 103 rejections, and for these additional reasons, claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 13, and 19-27 remain rejected.
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 KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 September 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights