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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III claims 14-20 in the reply filed on 4/21/26 is acknowledged.
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(s) 14-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oura et al. (US 2021/0126253)
With respect to claim 14, Oura et al. discloses a battery 10 comprising:
an anode current collector [076-0099];
an anode active layer 2 disposed on the anode current collector; where the anode active layer 2 comprises an anode active material; a polymeric binder and an electrically conducting additive; [0093-0099]
a cathode current collector [0099];
a cathode active layer disposed on the cathode current collector; where the cathode active layer comprises a cathode active material; a polymeric binder, a solid state electrolyte and an electrically conducting additive [0088-0099]; and
the solid state electrolyte; where the solid state electrolyte contacts both the anode active layer and the cathode active layer; and where the solid state electrolyte comprises a blend of the polymeric binder with a pseudobinary sulfide. [0096-0099; 0049; 0069; 0127-0131]
With respect to claim 15, Oura et al. discloses where the anode active material is a hard carbon. [0093-0099]
With respect to claim 16, Oura et al. discloses where the cathode active material is lithium cobalt oxide. [0090-0099]
With respect to claim 17, as the lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide and lithium nickel manganese oxide are not positively required by claim 16 (as long as a lithium cobalt oxide) claim 17 fails to further positively distinguish the claim from the prior art as only these claims further limit options which are not necessarily present.
With respect to claim 18, Oura et al. discloses where the solid state electrolyte includes a Li2S-P2Ss system. [0069; 0126-0133]
With respect to claim 20, Oura et al. discloses where the polymeric binder is poly(vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene). [0092-0097]
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.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oura et al. (US 2021/0126253) as applied to claim 14 above in further view of Platt et al. (US 2022/0123359).
With respect to claim 19, Oura et al. does not disclose where the solid state electrolyte is Li6PSsCl.
Platt et al. discloses where the solid state electrolyte is Li6PSsCl. [0028-0038]
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the electrolyte eof Oura et al. to include Li.sub.6PS.sub.5Cl, as disclosed in Platt et al., in order to allow for simple and scalable production processes
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jeong (US 2018/0053932) and Suganuma et al. (US 2020/0328451)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIRAN QURAISHI AKHTAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9AM-7PM.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
/KIRAN QURAISHI AKHTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights