CTNF 18/557,566 CTNF 101423 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Amendments to the specification, drawings, and claims, filed 26 October 2023, have been entered in the above identified application Claims 1-4 and 8-16 are pending in the application Claims 16 is withdrawn in the application Claims 4-7 and 17 are cancelled in the application Election/Restriction 18-18 REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e). When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions: As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories: (1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or (2) A product and a process of use of said product; or (3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or (4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or (5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process. Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c). 18-19 AIA Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372. This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted. Group I, Claims 1-4 and 8-15, drawn to a positive electrode material for an electric device. Group II, Claim 16, drawn to a method of producing a positive electrode material for an electric device. 18-07 AIA The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature the method of claim 16, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art over Nagata (European Patent Application Publication No. 3059788) in view of Kojika (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2016/213184). For prior art discussion see English translations for JP-2016213184-A. Nagata teaches a production method of a positive electrode material for an electric device ( [0057]-[0065] ) which includes obtaining a mixture of a conductive material ( ion-conductive material C ) and a sulfur-containing solid electrolyte ( sulfur discharge product A ) by a wet method ( including solvent D ), then performing heating treatment at a temperature of 80 °C to 250 °C in a state where a sulfur-containing positive electrode active material is added to the mixture ( [0065] ). This temperature range overlaps with the claimed range of 170°C and 250°C. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05) Nagata does not explicitly teach a conductive material having a pore volume of 1.0 mL/g or more Kojika teaches a positive electrode active material ( abstract and [0027] ) comprising a sulfur-containing positive electrode active material ( [0028] ) which includes a conductive material ( [0038] ) and a sulfur-containing solid electrolyte ( [0048] ). The positive electrode active material has a pore volume ( pore capacity ) of 0.5 mL/g to 4.0 mL/g ( [0043] , 0.5 cc/g to 4.0 cc/g, which is equivalent ). This overlaps with the claimed range of 1.0 mL/g or more. When there is sufficient overlap and specificity of the prior art range, then the claimed range is anticipated by the prior art (MPEP 2131.03.II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a conductive material that has a pore volume of in the range taught by Kojika in the method of Nagata. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this size as if the pore volume is less than 0.5 mL/g, the amount of active material inside the electronically conductive material may decrease, which may make it difficult to obtain a lithium-ion battery with high electrical capacity. On the other hand, if the pore volume of the electronically conductive material exceeds 4.0 mL/g, there is a risk that sufficient electronic conductivity cannot be ensured even after the first composite formation ( Kojika, [0043] ). 08-23 AIA During a telephone conversation with Francine Nesti on 5/12/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I , Claim s 1-4 and 8-15 . Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. 18-22 AIA Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention. The election of an invention or species may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention or species. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions have unity of invention (37 CFR 1.475(a)), applicant must provide reasons in support thereof. Applicant may submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. Where such evidence or admission is provided by applicant, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. 08-21-04 AIA The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined. In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 2 and 10 are 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 2 recites the limitation “the positive electrode active material is a sulfur simple substance ” which renders the claim vague and indefinite. As there is no explicit definition in Applicant’s specification, it is unclear if “a sulfur simple substance” means elemental sulfur (a substance containing only sulfur), a substance with a majority sulfur atoms, a substance with sulfur and a limited number of other atoms, or something else entirely. For the purpose of examination, the term “a sulfur simple substance” will be understood to mean elemental sulfur. Claim 10 recites the limitation “a value of a ratio of a count number of an element derived only from the solid electrolyte to a count number of all elements is 0.10 or more…” which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if “all elements” is in reference to all elements in the positive electrode or only the solid electrolyte. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-4, 8-9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Hideo et. al. (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2020/161288). For prior art discussion see English translations for JP-2020161288-A . Regarding Claim 1 , Hideo teaches a positive electrode material ( sulfur cathode composite material) for an electric device ( abstract ). The positive electrode material includes a sulfur-containing positive electrode active material and a sulfur-containing solid electrolyte ( [0018] and [0019] ). The positive electrode material for an electric device further includes a conductive material ( carbon replica, [0018] ) with a pore volume of 0.5 mL/g to 2.5 ml/g ( 0.5 cc 3 /g to 2.5 cc 3 /g, [0018] ), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.0 mL/g or more. When there is sufficient overlap and specificity of the prior art range, then the claimed range is anticipated by the prior art (MPEP 2131.03.II). Hideo does not explicitly teach a peak in the range of 1400 to 1450 cm-1 in a Raman spectrum of microscopic Raman spectrometry using a laser with a wavelength of 532 nm, however, it is reasonable to presume that said limitations are inherent to the invention. Support for said presumption is found in the use of similar materials (i.e. the sulfur positive electrode active material and Li 6 PS 5 Cl as the solid electrolyte ( [0019] ), both contained within the pores of the conductive material ( [0018] )) used to produce the positive electrode material. Furthermore, it is noted in the Applicant’s specification that the peak in the range of 1400 to 1450 cm-1 in a Raman spectrum appears for the positive electrode material after it has been heat treated at a relatively high temperature, and does not appear for the positive electrode material when it has not been heat treated ( [0040] ). Hideo discloses heat treatment of the positive electrode material at a relatively high temperature ( [0105] ). Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that said limitations are inherent to the invention of Hideo. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. ( MPEP 2112.III ) The limitation “the positive electrode material for an electric device is obtained by obtaining a mixture of the conductive material and the sulfur-containing solid electrolyte by a wet method, and then performing heating treatment at a temperature of more than 170°C and 250°C or less in a state where the sulfur-containing positive electrode active material is added to the mixture” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process produces unexpected results. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. MPEP 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Hideo discloses the identical structure of the positive electrode active material (i.e. the sulfur positive electrode active material and Li 6 PS 5 Cl as the solid electrolyte ( [0019] ), both contained within the pores of the conductive material ( [0018] ) which is heat treated at a relatively high temperature ( [0105] ). Regarding Claim 2 , Hideo teaches the positive electrode active material is a sulfur simple substance ( powdered sulfur, [0105] ) Regarding Claims 3 and 4 , Hideo teaches the solid electrolyte is a sulfide solid electrolyte containing a lithium as an alkali metal atom as well as a phosphorus atom ( such as Li 6 PS 5 Cl or Li 6 PS 5 Br, [0033] ). Regarding Claim 8 , Hideo teaches an average pore diameter of the conductive material is 5 nm to 20 nm ( [0018] ). This is within the claimed range of 50 nm or less. When there is sufficient overlap and specificity of the prior art range, then the claimed range is anticipated by the prior art (MPEP 2131.03.II). Regarding Claim 9 , Hideo teaches the conductive material is a carbon material ( carbon replica, [0018] ). Regarding Claim 11, Hideo teaches at least a part of the solid electrolyte and at least a part of the positive electrode active material are disposed on inner surfaces of the pores ( “sulfur 12 and solid electrolyte 13 encapsulated” , abstract ) to be in contact with each other ( the pores allow for increased contact area between the sulfur and the solid electrolyte, [0022] ). Regarding Claim 12, Hideo teaches a continuous phase containing the positive electrode active material is filled in inner portions of the pores ( fig. 1 ref. #11 and #12, the sulfur layer ref. #11 forms a continuous layer within the pore ), and the solid electrolyte is disposed as a dispersed phase in the continuous phase ( fig. 1 ref. #11-#13, the solid electrolyte ref. #13 is as crystals on the sulfur layer ref. #11, [0034]). Regarding Claim 13, Hideo teaches a positive electrode for an electric device, the positive electrode comprising the positive electrode material for an electric device according to claim 1 ( [0046] ). Regarding Claims 14 and 15, Hideo teaches an electric device comprising the positive electrode for an electric device, the electric device being an all-solid-state lithium secondary battery ( a lithium sulfur solid battery which can have multiple cycles, meaning that it is a secondary battery , [0020] ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Hideo et. al. (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2020/161288) in view of Wang et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0028440). For prior art discussion see English translations for JP-2020161288-A . Hideo is relied upon as described above. Hideo does not explicitly teach a value of a ratio of a count number of an element derived only from the solid electrolyte to a count number of all elements is 0.10 or more in an observed image of a cross section of the conductive material contained in a positive electrode material by TEM-EDX. Wang teaches an all-solid-state sodium or lithium sulfur battery ( title ). The battery includes a positive electrode material ( composite cathode ) which includes a sulfur-containing positive electrode active material ( Li 2 S ), a sulfur-containing solid electrolyte ( Li 3 PS 4 ), and a conductive material ( mesoporous carbon ) ( abstract ). The positive electrode active material and sulfur-containing solid electrolyte are contained within the pores of the conductive material ( [0008]-[0015] ). Wang also teaches that the amount of the solid electrolyte that is present within the pores ( channels ) of the conductive material ranges from being in 30% to 100% of the pores, which can be determined using energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) ( [0154]-[0155] ). This defines an upper and lower limit for the amount of solid electrolyte within the pores of the conductive material. Wang also teaches that an increased contact between the sulfur-containing positive electrode active material, solid electrolyte, and conductive material results in a reduction of interfacial resistance within the electrode, which in turn enhances the electrochemical performance ( [0108] ). By altering the amount of solid electrolyte contained within the conductive material pores, one could increase the contact between the sulfur-containing positive electrode active material, solid electrolyte, and conductive material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to find the optimal range of a ratio of a count number of an element derived only from the solid electrolyte to a count number of all elements is 0.10 or more in an observed image of a cross section of the conductive material contained in a positive electrode material by TEM-EDX in order to achieve the 30% to 100% of pores filled with the solid electrolyte as taught by Wang in the positive electrode material of Hideo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this ratio to reduce interfacial resistance within the cathode and increase electrochemical performance ( Wang, [0108] ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4, 8-9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Hideo et. al. (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2020/161288) in view of Matsumura (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2014/073466) and Zhao (US Patent Application Publication No.2001/0033971). For prior art discussion see English translations for JP-2020161288-A and WO-2014073466-A1 . Regarding Claim 1 , Hideo teaches a positive electrode material ( sulfur cathode composite material) for an electric device ( abstract ). The positive electrode material includes a sulfur-containing positive electrode active material and a sulfur-containing solid electrolyte ( [0018] and [0019] ). The positive electrode material for an electric device further includes a conductive material ( carbon replica, [0018] ) with a pore volume of 0.5 mL/g to 2.5 ml/g ( 0.5 cc 3 /g to 2.5 cc 3 /g, [0018] ), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.0 mL/g or more. When there is sufficient overlap and specificity of the prior art range, then the claimed range is anticipated by the prior art (MPEP 2131.03.II). Hideo does not explicitly teach a peak in the range of 1400 to 1450 cm-1 in a Raman spectrum of microscopic Raman spectrometry using a laser with a wavelength of 532 nm, however, it is reasonable to presume that said limitations are inherent to the invention. Support for said presumption is found in the use of similar materials (i.e. the sulfur positive electrode active material and Li 6 PS 5 Cl as the solid electrolyte ( [0019] ), both contained within the pores of the conductive material ( [0018] )) used to produce the positive electrode material. The limitation “the positive electrode material for an electric device is obtained by obtaining a mixture of the conductive material and the sulfur-containing solid electrolyte by a wet method, and then performing heating treatment at a temperature of more than 170°C and 250°C or less in a state where the sulfur-containing positive electrode active material is added to the mixture” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process produces unexpected results. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. MPEP 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Hideo discloses the identical structure of the positive electrode active material (i.e. the sulfur positive electrode active material and Li 6 PS 5 Cl as the solid electrolyte ( [0019] ), both contained within the pores of the conductive material ( [0018] ) which is heat treated at a relatively high temperature ( [0105] ). In the alternative, Hideo does not explicitly teach a peak in the range of 1400 to 1450 cm-1 in a Raman spectrum of microscopic Raman spectrometry using a laser with a wavelength of 532 nm. Applicant states that the peak in the range of 1400 to 1450 cm-1 in a Raman spectrum of microscopic Raman spectrometry using a laser with a wavelength of 532 nm is resultant from a new sulfur interfacial species formed between the solid electrolyte and the positive electrode active material ( [0049] ). Matsumura teaches a positive electrode material which contains a solid sulfide electrolyte ( abstract ). Matsumura also teaches a sulfur interfacial species that is formed on the interface of the solid sulfide electrolyte and the positive electrode material ( a sulfide that differs from the sulfide-based solid electrolyte, page 1, paragraph 2, lines 1-2 ), which allows for increased chemical with respect to the sulfide solid electrolyte, and the movement of lithium ions between the positive electrode active material and the sulfide solid electrolyte becomes easier, in turn allowing for reduced battery resistance ( page 10, paragraph 6, lines 3-8 ). This interfacial species is formed by heating the combined positive electrode material and sulfide solid electrolyte ( positive electrode composite material ) at 200 °C for 6 hours ( page 26, paragraph 2, lines 2-6 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form an interfacial species between the solid sulfide electrolyte and the positive electrode material of Hideo as taught by Matsumura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this interfacial species in order to reduce battery resistance ( page 10, paragraph 6, lines 3-8 ). Hideo and Matsumura do not explicitly teach a peak in the range of 1400 to 1450 cm-1 in a Raman spectrum of microscopic Raman spectrometry using a laser with a wavelength of 532 nm. Zhao teaches a positive electrode active material for a battery ( abstract ). The positive electrode active material is a carbon polysulfide ( abstract ), made by heating a mixture of sulfur, lithium sulfide, and a carbon containing molecule ( hexachlorobutadiene, [0077]-[0079] ). This results in a polycarbon sulfide with a peak at 1444 cm -1 in a Raman spectrum of microscopic Raman spectrometry ( [0015] ) which has high reversibility, high capacity as an active material for electrodes, and excellent stability ( [0011] ). This lies within the claimed range of 1400 to 1450 cm -1 . Since the prior art recites a value within the claimed range, the claimed range is obviated by the prior art (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the polysulfide carbon bonds as taught by Zhao in the active material of Hideo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these bonds due to the high reversibility, high capacity as an active material for electrodes, and excellent stability ( [0011] ). Regarding Claim 2 , Hideo teaches the positive electrode active material is a sulfur simple substance ( powdered sulfur, [0105] ) Regarding Claims 3 and 4 , Hideo teaches the solid electrolyte is a sulfide solid electrolyte containing a lithium as an alkali metal atom as well as a phosphorus atom ( such as Li 6 PS 5 Cl or Li 6 PS 5 Br, [0033] ). Regarding Claim 8 , Hideo teaches an average pore diameter of the conductive material is 5 nm to 20 nm ( [0018] ). This is within the claimed range of 50 nm or less. When there is sufficient overlap and specificity of the prior art range, then the claimed range is anticipated by the prior art (MPEP 2131.03.II). Regarding Claim 9 , Hideo teaches the conductive material is a carbon material ( carbon replica, [0018] ). Regarding Claim 11, Hideo teaches at least a part of the solid electrolyte and at least a part of the positive electrode active material are disposed on inner surfaces of the pores ( “sulfur 12 and solid electrolyte 13 encapsulated” , abstract ) to be in contact with each other ( the pores allow for increased contact area between the sulfur and the solid electrolyte, [0022] ). Regarding Claim 12, Hideo teaches a continuous phase containing the positive electrode active material is filled in inner portions of the pores ( fig. 1 ref. #11 and #12, the sulfur layer ref. #11 forms a continuous layer within the pore ), and the solid electrolyte is disposed as a dispersed phase in the continuous phase ( fig. 1 ref. #11-#13, the solid electrolyte ref. #13 is as crystals on the sulfur layer ref. #11, [0034]). Regarding Claim 13, Hideo teaches a positive electrode for an electric device, the positive electrode comprising the positive electrode material for an electric device according to claim 1 ( [0046] ). Regarding Claims 14 and 15, Hideo teaches an electric device comprising the positive electrode for an electric device, the electric device being an all-solid-state lithium secondary battery ( a lithium sulfur solid battery which can have multiple cycles, meaning that it is a secondary battery , [0020] ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Hideo et. al. (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2020/161288) in view of Matsumura (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2014/073466) and Zhao (US Patent Application Publication No.2001/0033971), further in view of Wang et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0028440) further. For prior art discussion see English translations for JP-2020161288-A and WO-2014073466-A1 . Hideo, Matsumura, and Zhao are relied upon as described above. Hideo does not explicitly teach a value of a ratio of a count number of an element derived only from the solid electrolyte to a count number of all elements is 0.10 or more in an observed image of a cross section of the conductive material contained in a positive electrode material by TEM-EDX. Wang teaches an all-solid-state sodium or lithium sulfur battery ( title ). The battery includes a positive electrode material ( composite cathode ) which includes a sulfur-containing positive electrode active material ( Li 2 S ), a sulfur-containing solid electrolyte ( Li 3 PS 4 ), and a conductive material ( mesoporous carbon ) ( abstract ). The positive electrode active material and sulfur-containing solid electrolyte are contained within the pores of the conductive material ( [0008]-[0015] ). Wang also teaches that the amount of the solid electrolyte that is present within the pores ( channels ) of the conductive material ranges from being in 30% to 100% of the pores, which can be determined using energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) ( [0154]-[0155] ). This defines an upper and lower limit for the amount of solid electrolyte within the pores of the conductive material. Wang also teaches that an increased contact between the sulfur-containing positive electrode active material, solid electrolyte, and conductive material results in a reduction of interfacial resistance within the electrode, which in turn enhances the electrochemical performance ( [0108] ). By altering the amount of solid electrolyte contained within the conductive material pores, one could increase the contact between the sulfur-containing positive electrode active material, solid electrolyte, and conductive material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to find the optimal range of a ratio of a count number of an element derived only from the solid electrolyte to a count number of all elements is 0.10 or more in an observed image of a cross section of the conductive material contained in a positive electrode material by TEM- EDX in order to achieve the 30% to 100% of pores filled with the solid electrolyte as taught by Wang in the positive electrode material of Hideo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this ratio to reduce interfacial resistance within the cathode and increase electrochemical performance ( Wang, [0108] ). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Myles Alan Lovasz whose telephone number is (571)272-0214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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. /MAL/Myles Alan LovaszExaminer, Art Unit 1788 05/28/2026 /ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/557,566 Page 2 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/557,566 Page 3 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/557,566 Page 4 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/557,566 Page 5 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/557,566 Page 6 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/557,566 Page 7 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/557,566 Page 8 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/557,566 Page 9 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/557,566 Page 10 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/557,566 Page 11 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/557,566 Page 12 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/557,566 Page 13 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/557,566 Page 14 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/557,566 Page 15 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/557,566 Page 16 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/557,566 Page 17 Art Unit: 1788
Prosecution Insights