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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-12 and 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amendment to Claim 1 recites “wherein a critical current density of the electrochemical device is 1 mA/cm2 or greater at room temperature… wherein the solid-state electrolyte material is selected from the group consisting of lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide (LLZO), doped LLZO, lithium aluminum titanium phosphate (LATP), lithium aluminum germanium phosphate (LAGP), and lithium phosphorous sulfide.”
After considering the entirety of the specification, it does not appear that there is support for having “a critical current density of the electrochemical device is 1 mA/cm2 or greater at room temperature… wherein the solid-state electrolyte material is selected from the group consisting of … doped LLZO, lithium aluminum titanium phosphate (LATP), lithium aluminum germanium phosphate (LAGP).”
The specification lacks support for the following claimed subject matter:
There is no indication that the critical current density of 1 mA/cm2 or greater is achieved at room temperature, see [0014] and [0076].
The paragraphs [0104]-[0105] do implicitly describe the critical current density as being compared to other critical current densities at room temperature. However, this is only is only in reference to the example for LLZO.
The experimental data for the Al-doped LLZO, Ta-doped LLZO shown in Figs. 3-5 are not described as being taken room temperature, see also [0083]-[0085].
The experimental date shown for critical current density for the lithium phosphorous sulfide solid electrolyte in Fig. 22 is not explicitly described as being taken at room temperature, see also [0142]-[0143]. However, it is the Examiner’s position that the description of the experiments on the lithium phosphorous sulfide solid electrolyte would lead one of ordinary skill to infer that the LPS experiments were also conducted at room temperature and appears to show a critical current density greater than 1 mA/cm2.
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that the written description provided gives support for the claimed subject matter of “a critical current density of the electrochemical device is 1 mA/cm2 or greater at room temperature… wherein the solid-state electrolyte material is selected from the group consisting of …LLZO…and lithium phosphorous sulfide” but not for the other listed solid electrolytes of doped LLZO, lithium aluminum titanium phosphate (LATP), lithium aluminum germanium phosphate (LAGP).
Response to Arguments
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112a of Claims 1-12 and 18-20 and 29 is partially maintained. Applicant argues on pages 9-12 of the response dated 12/16/2025 that “from paragraphs [0010], [00104], [00105], [00142], and [00143] of the present specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine which types of solid-state electrolyte materials are operable to achieve a critical current density of 1 mA/cm2 or greater at room temperature.” Applicant makes this argument in light of [0142]-[0143].
This argument is found to be partially unpersuasive because the broader discloser of the solid electrolyte materials given in [0010] does not indicate these values are tied to critical current densities at room temperature because the broad disclosure merely states “the critical current density of the electrochemical device can be 1 mA/cm2 or greater,” see [0014].
The discussion in the specification in [0142]-[0143] provided in the arguments that the similar behavior of LLZO and LPS indicates wider implications of understanding the lithium metal and solid electrolyte interface does not provide sufficient support to one of ordinary skill in the art that the critical current density would fall within the claimed range of 1 mA/cm2 or greater at room temperature.
However, it is the Examiner’s position that the description of the experiments (see [0142]) shown in Fig. 22 on the lithium phosphorous sulfide solid electrolyte would lead one of ordinary skill to infer that the LPS experiments were also conducted at room temperature and Fig. 22 appears to show a critical current density greater than 1 mA/cm2. Therefore, there is support for the claimed the lithium phosphorous sulfide in combination with the other limitations of Claim 1.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102 for Claim 29 is withdrawn due to the canceling of Claim 29.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kayla E Clary whose telephone number is (571)272-2854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 (PT).
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/K.E.C./
Kayla E. ClaryExaminer, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721