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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 07/27/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2022-119623 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Acknowledgement is made of certified English translation of the foreign application submission on 06/04/2026.
Response to Arguments
This office action addresses claims 1-12. Applicant's arguments filed on 06/04/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection on claims 1, 7, 8, 9 and 10 is maintained. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: the scope of the instant application’s electrode material encompasses the active material layer composite particle and an imidazoline-based compound.
Therefore, application claims 1, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are anticipated by 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of copending Application No. 18/343,878 to Hashimoto et al’ since they are in essence a “species” of the generic invention of instant application claims. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 3, lines 2-8, filed on 06/04/2026, with respect to claims 1-12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 03/10/2026 has been withdrawn.
Claims 1-12 are newly rejected under USC 103, however these rejections were not necessitated by amendment. This action is non-final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDSs) submitted on 06/30/2023 and 08/27/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 06/30/2023 were reviewed and are acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 06/30/2023 was reviewed and is acceptable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are provisionally rejected on the grounds of provisional nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of copending Application No. 18/343,878 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: the scope of the instant application’s electrode material encompasses the active material layer composite particle and an imidazoline-based compound. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention.
Application claim 1 is anticipated by copending claim 1 of reference. Copending claim 1 of recites an electrode comprising: an active material layer, wherein the active material layer includes a composite particle and an imidazoline-based compound, the composite particle includes a core particle and a covering layer, the covering layer covers at least part of a surface of the core particle, the core particle includes an active material, the covering layer includes a first layer and a second layer, at least part of the first layer is interposed between the core particle and the second layer, the first layer includes a first solid electrolyte, the second layer includes a second solid electrolyte, the first solid electrolyte is a fluoride, and the second solid electrolyte is a sulfide.
Application claim 7 is anticipated by copending claim 4 of reference. Copending claim 4 of Hashimoto recites the electrode according to claim 1, wherein the first solid electrolyte is represented by a formula (2): Li6-nxMxF6 ... (2) where x satisfies 0<x<2, M is at least one selected from the group consisting of semimetal atoms and metal atoms except Li, and, n represents an oxidation number of M.
Application claim 8 is anticipated by copending claim 5 of reference. Copending claim 5 of Hashimoto recites the electrode according to claim 4, wherein M in the formula (1) includes an atom whose oxidation number is +4.
Application claim 9 is anticipated by copending claim 6 of reference. Copending claim 6 of Hashimoto recites the electrode according to claim 4, wherein M in the formula (1) includes an atom whose oxidation number is +3.
Application claim 10 is anticipated by copending claim 7 of reference. Copending claim 7 of Hashimoto recites the electrode according to claim 4, wherein M in the formula (1) includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Ca, Mg, Al, Y, Ti, and Zr.
Therefore, application claims 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Hashimoto are in essence a “species” of the generic invention of copending application claims 1, 7, 8, 9 and 10 respectively.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 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 1-3, 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki et al. (US 2015/0372344 A1; hereinafter “Iwasaki”), in view of Oshima (WO 2020137391 A1; hereinafter “Oshima”; hereinafter US 2021/0218054 A1 will be referenced as the English language equivalent).
Regarding claim 1, Iwasaki discloses an electrode material (a composite active material; [0002]) comprising: a composite particle (including composite particles; [Abstract]), wherein the composite particle includes a core particle ([t]he composite particles contain active material particles; [0038]) and a covering layer, the covering layer covers at least part of a surface of the core particle (The oxide-based solid electrolyte coats all or part of a surface of each of the active material particles. The sulfide-based solid electrolyte further coats 76.0% or more of a surface of each of the composite particles; [0038]), the core particle includes an active material (active material particles; [0038]), the covering layer includes a first layer (the oxide-based solid electrolyte layer) and a second layer (the sulfide-based solid electrolyte), at least part of the first layer is interposed between the core particle and the second layer, the first layer includes a first solid electrolyte, the second layer includes a second solid electrolyte, and the second solid electrolyte is a sulfide (the sulfide-based solid electrolyte further coating 76.0% or more of a surface of each of the composite particles; [0038]).
Iwasaki fails to mention the first layer containing a solid electrolyte that is a fluoride.
However, Oshima teaches a first layer that includes a first solid electrolyte material, and a second layer that includes a second solid electrolyte material, which is different from the first solid electrolyte material [0019]. The first solid electrolyte material may contain Li, M1, and X1, where M1 is at least one selected from the group consisting of metalloid elements and metal elements other than Li, and X1 is at least one selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br, and I; [0010].
Iwasaki and Oshima are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium batteries.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwasaki to incorporate the teachings of Oshima to provide an electrode material comprising a composite particle, that includes a core particle where the first covering layer is a fluoride solid electrolyte and the second covering layer is a sulfide solid electrolyte. Doing so would improve the output of the battery [0018], as suggested by Oshima.
Regarding claim 2, Iwasaki discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Iwasaki fails to disclose that the second layer further includes the first solid electrolyte in addition to the second solid electrolyte and in the second layer, a volume fraction of the second solid electrolyte is more than a volume fraction of the first solid electrolyte.
Oshima teaches that the second layer may partially include a solid electrolyte material that is the same as one in the first layer. A solid electrolyte material that is included in the second layer and also included in the first layer may be present in an amount of, for example, less than or equal to 50%, less than or equal to 30%, or less than or equal to 10%, relative to an amount of the second layer 102, in terms of a volume fraction; [0022].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iwasaki to incorporate the teachings of Oshima to have the second layer further include the first solid electrolyte in addition to the second solid electrolyte and that a volume fraction of the second solid electrolyte is more than a volume fraction of the first solid electrolyte. Doing so would improve ionic conductivity of the first solid electrolyte material, the output characteristics and thermal stability of the battery [0033], as suggested by Oshima.
Regarding claim 3, Iwasaki discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
disclosed that the second layer further includes the active material in addition to the second solid electrolyte, and in the second layer, a volume fraction of the second solid electrolyte is more than a volume fraction of the active material.
Oshima teaches that when volume fractions of the positive electrode active material and the solid electrolyte material included in the positive electrode 201 are expressed as “v1:100−v1”, 30≤v1≤95 may be satisfied. Here, v1 represents the volume fraction of the positive electrode active material provided that a total volume of the positive electrode active material and the solid electrolyte material included in the positive electrode 201 is taken as 100. When 30≤v1 is satisfied, a sufficient energy density of the battery can be easily ensured. When v1≤95 is satisfied, a high-output operation of the battery is further facilitated; [0103])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwasaki to incorporate the teachings of Oshima to have the second layer include the active material in addition to the second solid electrolyte, and have a volume fraction of the second solid electrolyte is more than a volume fraction of the active material. Doing so would improve the charge-discharge characteristics of the battery [0085], as suggested by Oshima.
Regarding claims 7-10 Iwasaki discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Iwasaki fails to disclose:
(claim 7) that the first solid electrolyte is represented by a formula (1): Li6-nxMxF6 ... (1) where x satisfies 0<x<2, M is at least one selected from the group consisting of semimetal atoms and metal atoms except Li, and, n represents an oxidation number of M.
(claim 8) that M in the formula (1) includes an atom whose oxidation number is +4.
(claim 9) that M in the formula (1) includes an atom whose oxidation number is +3
(claim 10) that M in the formula (1) includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Ca, Mg, Al, Y, Ti, and Zr.
However, Oshima teaches a Y-containing first solid electrolyte material and a Y-containing second solid electrolyte material that may be each independently a compound represented by, for example, a composition formula of LiaMebYcX6, where a+mb+3c=6, and c>0 are satisfied. The element Me is at least one selected from the group consisting of metalloid elements and metal elements other than Li or Y. m represents the valence of the element Me. The element X is at least one selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br, and I. [0039].
Oshima further teaches that the element Me may be, for example, at least one selected from the group consisting of Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Zn, Sc, Al, Ga, Bi, Zr, Hf, Ti, Sn, Ta, and Nb; [0040]. It is an inherent quality of Yttrium (Y) to have an oxidation number of +3 and of Tin (Sn) to have an oxidation number of +4.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwasaki to incorporate the teachings of Nakama to represent the first solid electrolyte by formula 1 wherein M in the formula (1) includes an atom whose oxidation number is +4 or +3 or includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Ca, Mg, Al, Y, Ti, and Zr. Doing so would result in the improvement of the ionic conductivity of the solid electrolyte material and as a result, the output characteristics of the battery are improved [0041], as suggested by Oshima.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Iwasaki discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Iwasaki further discloses an electrode comprising the electrode material according to claim 1 (At least one of the positive electrode and the negative electrode contains at least one of the above-described composite active material; [0015]).
Iwasaki further discloses an all-solid-state battery comprising the electrode according to claim 11 (the lithium secondary battery includes a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and an electrolyte layer interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode; [0015]; the electrode electrolyte may be a solid electrolyte, such as a solid oxide electrolyte and a solid sulfide electrolyte; [0087].
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki et al. (WO 2014/122520 A1), in view of Oshima (WO 2020137391 A1; hereinafter “Oshima”; hereinafter US 2021/0218054 A1 will be referenced as the English language equivalent), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsumura et al. (US 20200350626 A1; hereinafter “Matsumura”).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Iwasaki discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Iwasaki et al. fails to disclose:
(claim 4) that the second layer further includes the first solid electrolyte and the active material in addition to the second solid electrolyte, and in the second layer, a volume fraction of the second solid electrolyte is more than a total volume fraction of the first solid electrolyte and the active material.
(claim 5) and that in the second layer, the first solid electrolyte is adhered to the active material.
Matsumura teaches that a volume ratio “v: 100-v” of the cathode active material particles and the second solid electrolyte particles included in the cathode, 30≤v≤95 may be satisfied; wherein v iis the volume of the active material particles. If 30≤v, a sufficient battery energy density can be secured. From the results of the inventive examples 4 to 6, Matsumura has confirmed that the formation of the high resistance layer due to the contact between the cathode active material and the sulfide solid electrolyte can be suppressed by coating the cathode active material with the halide solid electrolyte which does not include iodine [0255].
Matsumura further teaches that In the cathode material according to the first embodiment, the second solid electrolyte particles 100 and the coating layer (halide solid electrolyte) may be in contact with each other as shown in FIG. 1; [0139].
Iwasaki and Matsumura are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium batteries.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a volume fraction; wherein the second layer (sulfide electrolyte layer) contains a lower volume fraction of active material than a volume fraction of second electrolyte, and to adhere the first solid electrolyte and the active material. Doing so would suppress a high overvoltage due to the formation of a high resistance layer created by the contact between the cathode active material and the sulfide solid electrolyte [0139], and would secure a sufficient battery energy density [0155], as suggested by Matsumura.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki et al. (US 2015/0372344 A1; hereinafter “Iwasaki”), in view of Oshima (WO 2020137391 A1; hereinafter “Oshima”; hereinafter US 2021/0218054 A1 will be referenced as the English language equivalent), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (US 2021/0280854 A1; hereinafter "Kwon").
Regarding claim 6, Iwasaki discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Iwasaki fails to disclose that the relative to 100 parts by mass of the active material, the first solid electrolyte is from 1 to 10 parts by mass, and the second solid electrolyte is from 0.1 to 20 parts by mass.
However, Kwon teaches, directed to a positive electrode [0002], an amount of the lithium ion conductor is in a range of about 0.1 parts to about 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the total weight of the positive active material [0023], wherein the lithium ion conductor is selected from a lanthanum oxide and a lithium lanthanum oxide [0023].
Furthermore, Kwon teaches an amount of the solid electrolyte may be in a range of about 5 parts to about 15 parts by weight [0042]; wherein the amount of positive active material may be in a range of about 80 parts to about 93 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the total weight of the positive electrode [0042].
Iwasaki and Kwon are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium batteries.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwasaki to incorporate the teachings of Kwon including the concentrations of the first and second electrolytes relative to the active material in the electrode material according to claim 1. Doing so would suppress or reduce diffusion between electrode and electrolyte, decreasing interfacial resistance in the lithium battery [0030], as suggested by Kwon.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sugimoto et al. (US 2021/0143474 A1) discloses a battery with a first and second electrolyte layers , that are materially different from each other.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA N LIZARAZU whose telephone number is (571)272-9697. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-6:00pm.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 5712703879. 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.
/J.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights