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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 22 January 2024 and 24 June 2025 were considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of “O2 type structure” in regards to the cathode active material. This renders the scope of the claim indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain whether the structure is only limited to O2 chemical structure or if a combination of structures with O2 within the active material is the claimed limitation. Therefore, the claimed structure will be interpreted as being a structure with at least containing O2 structure within.
Claims 2-5 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 1.
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.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2021/0143413 (Lee) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0119207 (Sugiyama).
Regarding claims 1-5, Lee teaches an all-solid secondary battery including a cathode layer, anode layer, and a sulfide- based solid electrolyte (Abstract). The solid electrolyte is disclosed to have a possible structure of Li2S—P2S5—LiX where X is a halogen element (¶0067) as in the limitation of claim 4. The elastic modulus i.e. Young’s modulus, is taught to be about 10 GPa to about 30 GPa (¶0071) as in claim 5. It is further explained that when the elastic modulus is within these ranges the temperature and/or pressure required for sintering may be decreased and allow for easier sintering. The disclosed cathode active material layer is given as a nonlimiting example formula of LiaNibCocMndGeO2 where 0.90≤ a ≤1, 0≤ b ≤0.9, 0≤ c ≤0.5, 0≤ d ≤0.5, and 0.001 ≤e≤0.1 and G can be Al, Cr, Mn, Fe, Mg, La, Ce, Sr, V, or a possible combination (¶0055). In the case where claimed ranges overlap inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Lee is silent in regards to the O2 type structure of the cathode active material and the inclusion of Na in the chemical composition of the cathode active material.
Sugiyama teaches that a layered cathode active material having an O2 structure has been conventionally researched (¶0002). This is obtained by synthesizing a Na-doped precursor and then subsequent ion exchange of the Na for Li. In the disclosed cathode material composition, the concentration is preferably at most 0.01. Sugiyama teaches that the composition of Na is preferably as small as possible as the lithium should be substituted for almost the entire sodium in the transition metal oxide such that the writing may of Na may be omitted (¶0054).
Therefore, it is obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to combine the all-solid secondary battery of Lee with the O2 type structure and inclusion of Na in the chemical composition to produce such structure of the cathode active material to produce a secondary battery, as in the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW E. HALES whose telephone number is (571)270-5710. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (572) 272-0604. 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.
/D.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights