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 .
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harata et al. (US 11,600,817).
With respect to claim 1, Harata teaches a silicon clathrate electrode active material (col. 3, lines 31-39), comprising greater than 0% by mass oxygen (col. 5, lines 51-61), but fails to teach the instantly claimed range of greater than 0% by mass and less than 19.4% by mass of oxygen atoms. Harata teaches cleaning the silicon material with water, thereby the surface of the silicon material is partially oxidized and oxygen is expected to be introduced into the silicon material; and further teaches that the silicon material into which oxygen has been introduced is expected to enhance stability and enhance performance as a negative electrode active material (col. 5, lines 51-61). Therefore, the instantly claimed percentage range of oxygen atoms present in the silicon material is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the electrode active material cost of construction and performance and stability are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said percentage of oxygen atoms present in the silicon material, with said construction cost and performance and stability being improved as the percentage of oxygen atoms present in the silicon material is optimized, the precise percentage of oxygen atoms present in the silicon material would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed percentage range of oxygen atoms present in the silicon material cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the percentage of oxygen atoms present in the silicon material of Harata el. to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the performance and stability (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
With respect to claim 2, Harata teaches greater than 0% by mass oxygen (col. 5, lines 51-61), but fails to teach the instantly claimed range of 2.0% by mass or greater of oxygen atoms. Harata teaches cleaning the silicon material with water, thereby the surface of the silicon material is partially oxidized and oxygen is expected to be introduced into the silicon material; and further teaches that the silicon material into which oxygen has been introduced is expected to enhance stability and enhance performance as a negative electrode active material (col. 5, lines 51-61). Therefore, the instantly claimed percentage range of oxygen atoms present in the silicon material is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the electrode active material cost of construction and performance and stability are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said percentage of oxygen atoms present in the silicon material, with said construction cost and performance and stability being improved as the percentage of oxygen atoms present in the silicon material is optimized, the precise percentage of oxygen atoms present in the silicon material would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed percentage range of oxygen atoms present in the silicon material cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the percentage of oxygen atoms present in the silicon material of Harata el. to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the performance and stability (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
With respect to claim 3, Harata teaches greater than 0% by mass oxygen (col. 5, lines 51-61), but fails to teach the instantly claimed range of 3.3% by mass or greater and 7.0% by mass or less of oxygen atoms. Harata teaches cleaning the silicon material with water, thereby the surface of the silicon material is partially oxidized and oxygen is expected to be introduced into the silicon material; and further teaches that the silicon material into which oxygen has been introduced is expected to enhance stability and enhance performance as a negative electrode active material (col. 5, lines 51-61). Therefore, the instantly claimed percentage range of oxygen atoms present in the silicon material is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the electrode active material cost of construction and performance and stability are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said percentage of oxygen atoms present in the silicon material, with said construction cost and performance and stability being improved as the percentage of oxygen atoms present in the silicon material is optimized, the precise percentage of oxygen atoms present in the silicon material would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed percentage range of oxygen atoms present in the silicon material cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the percentage of oxygen atoms present in the silicon material of Harata el. to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the performance and stability (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
With respect to claim 4, Harata teaches at least partially having a clathrate type II structure (col. 5, lines 34-61).
With respect to claim 5, Harata teaches the silicon clathrate electrode active material according to Claim 1 and a solid electrolyte (col. 5, lines 17-33).
With respect to claim 7, Harata teaches a negative electrode active material layer (col. 4, lines 64-67), containing the negative electrode mixture according to Claim 5.
With respect to claim 8, Harata teaches a solid-state lithium-ion battery (col. 5, lines 17-33), comprising the negative electrode active material layer according to Claim 7.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harata et al. (US 11,600,817), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Yoshida et al. (US 20200020929 A1).
With respect to claim 6, Harata discloses all claim limitations as set forth above but fails to teach wherein the solid electrolyte is a sulfide solid electrolyte. Yoshida teaches an anode active material comprising silicon clathrate (para. [0067]) and teaches wherein the solid electrolyte is a sulfide solid electrolyte (para. [0088])-[0089]) in order to provide an electrolyte that is compatible with the electrode active material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to have the solid electrolyte in Harata comprise a sulfide solid electrolyte, as taught by Yoshida, in order to provide an electrolyte that is compatible with the electrode active material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITY V CHANDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8520. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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.
/KAITY V CHANDLER/ 6/24/2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights