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 . 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, 19, and 20, in the reply filed on July 10, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 10-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed October 11, 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Specifically, Applicant has failed to provide a copy of KR 10-2019-0041733. Applicant has provided copy of KR 10-2019-0009323 with the cover sheet of US 2019/0260018 A1 instead of the correct document.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-9, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (US 2018/0212233 A1), hereinafter “Ito,” in view of Kamimura et al. (JP 2009-104818 A), hereinafter “Kamimura.”
Regarding claim 1, Ito discloses a solid electrolyte comprising:
sulfide-based solid electrolyte particles, in this case lithium sulfide solid electrolyte material (¶ [0099]-[0104], Fig. 1, ref. no. 300).
Ito further discloses a metal alkoxide coating on the cathode active material particles (¶ [0109], Fig. 2, ref. nos. 102 & 101), but does not disclose that the coating layer is disposed on the surface of the sulfide-based solid electrolyte particles. However, Kamimura teaches coating a solid electrolyte layer with a slurry comprising a metal alkoxide (pp. 6-7). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that including such a metal alkoxide coating layer on the sulfide-based solid electrolyte would have improved ionic conductivity (see p. 3), thereby facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included a metal alkoxide coating on the solid electrolyte in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
Regarding claim 2, Ito does not disclose the metal alkoxide coating disposed on the solid electrolyte particles. However, Kamimura teaches the metal alkoxide coating as set forth in claim 1, above, and further teaches that the metal alkoxide includes a metal selected from Nb, Ti, and V (p. 4). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that including such a metal alkoxide coating layer on the sulfide-based solid electrolyte would have improved ionic conductivity (see p. 3), thereby facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included a metal alkoxide coating on the solid electrolyte in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
Regarding claim 3, Ito does not disclose the metal alkoxide coating disposed on the solid electrolyte particles. Kamimura teaches the metal alkoxide coating as set forth in claim 1, above, but does not specify the amount in wt% relative to the solid electrolyte. However, Kamimura does teach that the metal alkoxide in the coating promotes ion conduction (see p. 3). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to have provided a sufficient loading of the metal alkoxide in order to have achieved the desired ionic transport effect, thus facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided 0.1 wt% to 50 wt% metal alkoxide based on 100 wt% of the solid electrolyte in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
Regarding claim 4, Ito does not disclose the metal alkoxide coating disposed on the solid electrolyte particles. Kamimura teaches the metal alkoxide coating as set forth in claim 1, above, but does not specify the amount in wt% relative to the solid electrolyte. However, Kamimura does teach that the metal alkoxide in the coating promotes ion conduction (see p. 3). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to have provided a sufficient loading of the metal alkoxide in order to have achieved the desired ionic transport effect, thus facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided 5 wt% to 25 wt% metal alkoxide based on 100 wt% of the solid electrolyte in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
Regarding claim 5, Ito does not disclose the metal alkoxide coating disposed on the solid electrolyte particles. However, Kamimura teaches the metal alkoxide coating as set forth in claim 1, above, and further teaches that the coating layer further includes metal oxides of the same metal as the metal alkoxide, in this case metal oxide aggregates derived from the metal alkoxide (pp. 6-7). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that including such a metal alkoxide coating layer on the sulfide-based solid electrolyte would have improved ionic conductivity (see p. 3), thereby facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included a metal alkoxide coating on the solid electrolyte in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
Regarding claim 6, Ito does not disclose the metal alkoxide coating disposed on the solid electrolyte particles. Kamimura teaches the metal alkoxide coating as set forth in claim 1, above, and further teaches the solid electrolyte’s thickness of 3 μm to 100 μm (p. 6), but does not teach the coating layer’s thickness. However, Kamimura does teach that the metal alkoxide in the coating promotes ion conduction (see p. 3). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to have made the coating layer’s thickness to be within a range to as to have achieved the desired ionic transport effect, thus facilitating improved battery operation. Furthermore, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the coating layer’s thickness to have been 5 nm to 1 μm in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
Regarding claim 7, Ito further discloses that the sulfide-based solid electrolyte includes an argyrodite-type sulfide, in this case Li3PS4 (¶ [0170]-[0171]).
Regarding claim 8, Ito further discloses that the argyrodite-type sulfide is Li3PS4 (¶ [0170]-[0171]).
Regarding claim 9, Ito further teaches that the average particle diameter (D50) of the solid electrolyte is 0.1 μm to 5.0 μm, in this case 0.1 μm to 20 μm (¶ [0104]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19, Ito further discloses a positive electrode active material comprising:
a solid electrolyte (¶ [0050], Fig. 2, ref. no. 300); and
a positive electrode active material, in this case the composite cathode active material (¶ [0050], Fig. 2, ref. no. 100).
Furthermore, Ito and Kamimura render the solid electrolyte of claim 1 obvious as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 20, Ito further discloses an all-solid-state rechargeable battery comprising:
a positive electrode, in this case the cathode layer (¶ [0054], Fig. 1, ref. no. 10);
a negative electrode, in this case the anode layer (¶ [0054], Fig. 1, ref. no. 20); and
a solid electrolyte layer between the positive and negative electrodes (¶ [0054], Fig. 1, ref. no. 30).
Furthermore, Ito and Kamimura render the solid electrolyte of claim 1 obvious as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights