DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-21 are pending in the application. New grounds of rejection have been added for claims 1-15, 17-19, and 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-15, 17-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. (US 2015/0180076) in view of Park et al. (“High-Voltage Superionic Halide Solid Electrolytes for All-Solid-State Li-Ion Batteries”).
Regarding claims 1 and 4-8, 17-19, and 21, Hasegawa et al. discloses in Figs 1-11, a positive electrode material ([0045]) comprising: a positive electrode active material ([0043]); and a solid electrolyte ([0045]), and a ratio of a volume ([0045]) of the solid electrolyte ([0045]) to a volume of the positive electrode material ([0043]) is in a range of greater than or equal to 8% and less than or equal to 25% ([0045], 10% endpoint).
Hasegawa et al. does not explicitly disclose an oxidation potential of the solid electrolyte is higher than or equal to 4.0 V and lower than or equal to 6.5 V versus Li/Li+, wherein the solid electrolyte is represented by Formula (1) below: LiaMbXc (1) wherein a, b, and c are each independently a value larger than 0; M is at least one selected from the group consisting of metal elements other than Li and semi-metal elements; and X is Cl or F, and M includes trivalent cation Y, or quadrivalent Zr, where the solid electrolyte is Li2.5Y0.5Zr0.5Cl6.
Park et al. discloses an all solid state Li ion battery (Abstract) including a cathode composite active material including solid electrolyte including Li2.5Y0.5Zr0.5Cl6 (P537/Fig 4b), having oxidation potential of the solid electrolyte is 4.5 V versus Li/Li+ (P537/Fig 4b, P533/Abstract, P538/C1). This configuration enhances battery cycling performance and overall electrical performance (P533/Abstract, P538/C1).
Hasegawa et al. and Park et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the solid electrolyte material of Park et al. into the material of Hasegawa et al. to enhance battery cycling performance and overall electrical performance.
Regarding claim 2, modified Hasegawa et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the ratio is in a range of greater than or equal to 10% and less than or equal to 25% ([0045], 10% endpoint).
Regarding claim 3, modified Hasegawa et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the ratio is in a range that overlaps ([0045]) that of the range in the instant claim (greater than or equal to 13% and less than or equal to 25%). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549
Regarding claim 9, modified Hasegawa et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses a conductive additive ([0049]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Hasegawa et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the conductive additive contains a carbon material ([0049]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Hasegawa et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the positive electrode active material has an electric conductivity of higher than or equal to 10-9 S/cm ([0043], multiple compounds listed with this conductivity, i.e. LiMn2O4, LiCoO2, etc.).
Regarding claim 12, modified Hasegawa et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses a coating layer ([0046]) coating at least part of a surface ([0046]) of the positive electrode active material, wherein the coating layer contains a lithium-containing oxide ([0046]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Hasegawa et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the lithium-containing oxide includes lithium niobate ([0046]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Hasegawa et al. discloses in Figs 1-11, a battery (ref 7) comprising: a positive electrode ([0040]) containing the positive electrode material ([0045]) as set forth above; a negative electrode ([0040]); and an electrolyte layer (ref 70) disposed between the positive electrode ([0040]) and the negative electrode ([0040]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Hasegawa et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the electrolyte layer (ref 70) contains a sulfide solid electrolyte ([0042]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Instant dependent claim discloses X is F and instant dependent claim 20 discloses the solid electrolyte is Li2.7Y1.1Cl6.
Hasegawa in view of Park is considered the combination of prior art references of record closest to the aforementioned instant dependent claims. However, the aforementioned combination does not disclose or render obvious the aforementioned instant dependent claim limitations. Namely, Hasegawa in view of Park discloses a positive electrode material including a solid electrolyte of type Li2.5Y0.5Zr0.5Cl6 which is distinct chemically from the chemical species disclosed in dependent claims 16 and 20. No further references were found that alleviate the deficiencies of the above-cited prior art references. As such, these limitations would be allowable if the above claim objections were overcome.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see P5-8, filed 9/2/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-15 under 35 USC 102 with respect to Hayashi and 35 USC 103 with respect to Hasegawa in view of Sasaki have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection for claims 1-15, 17-19, and 21 is made in view of Hasegawa in view of Park (as set forth in the office action above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P EST.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights