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 § 102
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Meguro et al. (US20160359194A1, cited in 03/28/2024 IDS).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 7, Meguro discloses a solid electrolyte powder for use in a lithium-ion all-solid-state battery ([0010, 0036]).
Meguro’s solid electrolyte powder comprises a volume-based particle diameter distribution (peaks shown in FIG. 2C) having a first peak (“Pb”) from 0.1-1.5 µm and a second peak (“Pa”) from 0.4-2 µm ([0014-0016]). A specific experimental embodiment of the solid electrolyte powder (see Test No. 102, p. 12 Table 1) comprises a first peak (“Pb”) at 0.6 µm and a second peak (“Pa”) at 1.2 µm, which fall within and anticipate claim 1’s ranges of a first peak in a particle diameter range of 0.5 µm to 0.7 µm and a second peak in a particle diameter range of 1 µm to 3 µm.
Meguro further discloses a solid electrolyte layer (“inorganic solid electrolyte sheet”) comprising claim 1’s solid electrolyte powder ([0186]) as claimed in claim 6, and a lithium-ion all-solid-state battery comprising the above solid electrolyte layer, a positive electrode, and a negative electrode (“electrodes”) ([0198]) as claimed in claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / § 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Meguro (US20160359194A1) as applied to claim 1, further as evidenced by Britton et al. (Uncertainty Estimation Cheat Sheet for Probabilistic Risk Assessment; copy provided with this Office action)
Regarding claim 3, Meguro discloses the solid electrolyte powder according to claim 1. Meguro fails to expressly disclose a 50% diameter (D50) of the solid electrolyte powder in a volume-based cumulative particle diameter distribution as claimed in claim 3, where the D50 is 0.7µm to 2.5 µm.
However, some value of D50 is necessarily present as a property of any particle distribution. Furthermore, Meguro’s solid electrolyte powder, being a mix of smaller particles B and larger particles A ([0062]), necessarily comprises a D50 between those of the D50 of component particles’ particle distributions.
In an example embodiment (see Test No. 102, p. 12 Table 1), a D90 (“Pa90”) of the larger particles A of the mixture is 2.0 µm; the inherent D50 of the solid electrolyte powder is necessarily at least some degree smaller this value. The particle groups (e.g., particles B) are also further noted by Meguro as assumed to follow a log-normal distribution ([0076]). In this distribution, a median (i.e., D50) is greater than a mode (i.e., a peak) as evidenced by Britton (see FIG. on Britton p. 3, Britton p. 4); thus, a D50 of the solid electrolyte powder is necessarily greater by at least some amount than a first peak of the smaller particles B (Pb) at 0.6 µm (Meguro Test No. 102, p. 12 Table 1).
Therefore, an estimate of the 50% diameter (D50) in a volume-based cumulative particle diameter distribution inherent to Meguro’s experimental example (Test No. 102, p. 12 Table 1) is necessarily greater than 0.6 µm (from the smaller Particles B) and less than 2 µm (from the larger particles A). This potential range overlaps so closely with the claimed range of 0.7µm to 2.5 µm so as to disclose it with sufficient specificity; moreover, as both particle groups with these parameters are combined to form Meguro’s exemplary solid electrolyte powder (Meguro Test No. 102, p. 12 Table 1), a skilled artisan would likely expect the inherent D50 to be closer to an average of these the two limiting parameters (i.e., falling within an overlapping portion of 0.7-2 µm in claim 3) than to an endpoint of 0.6 µm outside the claimed range.
Assuming arguendo, that applicant is able to convincingly prove that the Meguro’s exemplary embodiment does not necessarily or inherently comprise a D50 of 0.7µm to 2.5 µm with sufficient specificity, it would still have been obvious to have selected the overlapping portion of the range with a reasonable expectation of success.
Meguro discloses varying addition amounts (Wb) and (Wa) of particles B and A following the relation (4) 0.01≤Wb/(Wa+Wb)≤0.8 ([0075,0077]), which may also be expressed as 0.25≤Wa/Wb≤99. Meguro notes that excessively increasing the number and total area of the particles can impede ion conductivity ([0070]); a skilled artisan may consider limiting the relative amount of smaller particles B in the powder to avoid this effect. On the other hand, particle B helps to fill voids between solid particles and increase the ion conductivity ([0074, 0077-0079]), such that at least some sufficient amount of particle B is necessary. To balance effects of the above considerations, a skilled artisan would consider optimizing the relative contents of particles B and A in Meguro’s exemplary embodiment (see Meguro Test No. 102, p. 12 Table 1) within a range of 0.25≤Wa/Wb≤99 (MPEP 2144.05 II).
In varying the relative contents of particles B and A, the inherent D50 of the powder would also shift between the range constrained by 0.6 µm (from the smaller Particles B) to 2 µm (from the larger particles A). This potential range overlaps with claim 3’s range of 0.7µm to 2.5 µm between 0.7-2µm, such that a skilled artisan optimizing the addition amounts of particles B/A would routinely utilize at least a portion of the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meguro (US20160359194A1) as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Meguro discloses a solid electrolyte powder for use in a lithium-ion all-solid-state battery ([0012, 0036]).
Meguro discloses varying areas of the first peak (WPb) and second peak (WPa) corresponding to particles B and A following the relation (3) 0.01≤WPb/(WPa+WPb)≤0.8 ([0075,0076]), which may also be expressed as 0.25≤WPa/WPb≤99. Meguro notes that excessively increasing the number and total area of the particles can impede ion conductivity ([0070]); a skilled artisan may consider limiting the relative amount of smaller particles B in the powder (thus reducing a corresponding peak area WPb) to avoid this effect. On the other hand, particle B helps to fill voids between solid particles and increase the ion conductivity ([0074, 0077-0079]), such that at least some sufficient amount of particle B (and peak area WPb) is necessary. To balance effects of the above considerations, a skilled artisan would optimize the areas of Meguro’s first and second peaks (i.e., WPb and WPa) in Meguro’s exemplary embodiment (see Meguro Test No. 102, p. 12 Table 1) within the range 0.25≤Wa/Wb≤99 (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Meguro fails to expressly disclose a peak frequency of the first peak (p1%) and second peak (p2%), i.e., an abundance ratio percentage of a particle diameter at a respective peak apex as defined in ¶[0065] of Applicant’s specification. However, as a property of geometry, the relative areas of each peak are proportional to the height (e.g., the peak apex value) of the peak and the width of the peak. Moreover, Meguro appears to envision relatively similar widths for the first peak and second peak in the particle diameter distribution (see FIGs. 2A-2C). Therefore, the following relation applies for purposes of estimation,
W
P
a
W
P
b
≅
W
i
d
t
h
a
*
p
2
W
i
d
t
h
b
*
p
1
≅
p
2
P
1
w
h
e
r
e
W
i
d
t
h
a
≅
W
i
d
t
h
b
,
such that Meguro’s WPa/WPb at least approximates Applicant’s ratio p2/p1 in claim 2.
Thus, by optimizing a peak area ratio between 0.25≤WPa/WPb≤99 in Meguro’s solid electrolyte powder (see discussion above), a skilled artisan would also vary the peak frequency ratio p2/p1 within a roughly similar range of 0.25≤p2/p1≤99, which encompasses the p2/p1 range of 0.4 or more and 2.5 or less claimed in claim 2 such that a skilled artisan would routinely utilize the encompassed range through routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding claim 5, Meguro discloses the solid electrolyte powder according to claim 1.
Meguro recognizes sulfur solid electrolytes as equivalents to oxide solid electrolytes for purposes of forming a solid electrolyte powder having the first and second peak in a particle diameter distribution ([0018], [0012-0013]), and further produces an experimental embodiment of the powder with a sulfide solid electrolyte (see Test No. 201, p. 13 Table 2). However, Meguro’s experimental embodiment discussed in claim 1 (see Test No. 102, p. 12 Table 1) is provided as an oxide (“LLT”) solid electrolyte powder; Meguro fails to provide specific experimental embodiments of a sulfide solid electrolyte powder as claimed in claim 5 having first and second peaks in particle diameters which fall within claim 1’s ranges.
Nonetheless, as Meguro recognizes sulfides and oxides as equivalent materials for purposes of forming an electrolyte powder having a specific first and second peak in a particle diameter distribution ([0018], [0012-0013]), it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to form a solid electrolyte powder having the first and second peaks exemplified by Meguro’s Test No. 102 (p. 12 Table 1) out of a sulfide solid electrolyte material instead of the LLT oxide solid electrolyte material, thus forming the powder of claim 5 wherein the solid electrolyte powder is a sulfide solid electrolyte powder (MPEP 2144.06 II, 2144.07).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meguro (US20160359194A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Ouchi et al. (WO2012063827A1, cited in 10-14-2025 IDS, see attached machine translation):
Regarding claim 4, Meguro discloses the solid electrolyte powder according to claim 1.
Meguro discloses that a D90 (“Pa90”) of the larger particles A of the mixture is 2.0 µm; it would be apparent that the inherent 99% diameter (D99) in a volume-based cumulative particle diameter of the solid electrolyte powder would likely be greater than this value. Furthermore, Meguro envisions the use of filtration processes to remove particles or aggregates outside a predetermined particle diameter, ([0122]), suggesting a need to control the size and frequency of unusual-sized particles (e.g., D99 particles). However, Meguro fails to expressly disclose a D99 of the volume-based cumulative particle diameter as claimed in claim 4 wherein the D99 is 3 µm to 10 µm.
Ouchi is analogous as discussing a solid electrolyte slurry for a solid-state battery (Ouchi, machine translation [0041, 0045]) where examples of the slurry comprise solid electrolyte powders having volume-based particle diameter distributions with a first and second peak ([0039], FIG. 9).
Ouchi further teaches a desirability to maintain a D99 of the volume-based cumulative particle diameter within a range of 0.5 µm or more and 20 µm or less to prevent sedimentation of coarse particles and stabilize the dispersibility of the slurry ([0055]). Such considerations are pertinent to Meguro’s disclosure, which utilizes wet (slurry) dispersion processes (Meguro [0122, 0123], Test No. 102, p. 12 Table 1).
Thus, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Meguro’s experimental embodiment of the solid electrolyte powder (Test No. 102, p. 12 Table 1) to select the encompassed portion of the range to prevent sedimentation of coarse particles and stabilize the dispersibility of the slurry with a reasonable expectation of success, as Meguro presently envisions the use of filtration processes to remove particles or aggregates outside a predetermined particle diameter (Meguro [0122]) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sugiura et al. (JP2013157084A, cited in 03/28/2024 IDS, see attached machine translation) discusses a solid electrolyte layer formed from a solid electrolyte powder (machine translation [0020]) comprising first solid electrolyte particles having an average particle size (B) of 1.0-20 µm ([0026]) and second solid electrolyte particle having an average particle size (C) of 0.1μm to 1.0μm ([0043]).
The solid electrolyte powder comprising a mixture of these two particles would comprise a first and second peak in a volume-based particle diameter distribution; however, Suguira on its own does not appear to directly disclose or provide sufficient information to determine a particle diameter of these first and second peaks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-8:00.
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 G Leong can be reached on (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.
/E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 7/26/2026
Prosecution Insights