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 .
Response to Amendment
This is a final office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 11/21/2025.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections in the previous office action are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (p. 3-4) that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify Kawakami to include the 3LiOH·Li2SO4 disclosed by Singh because the inorganic solid electrolytes disclosed by Kawakami at are limited to sulfide and oxide glasses ([0048]).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Kawakami does not state that the solid electrolyte is limited to the listed materials. The materials listed by Kawakami are described as examples of suitable solid electrolytes.
Applicant argues (p. 4) there is no disclosure in Kawakami and Singh, either alone or in combination, to teach or suggest that Li3BO3 has the same effect on increasing conductivity as LiF when added to the Li2SO4·LiOH solid electrolyte composition. Singh teaches that, while the addition of LiX reduces conductivity due to the reduced content of the 3LiOH·Li2SO4 phase, the specific addition of LiF increases conductivity due to fluorine being the smallest in size of the halides. A skilled artisan therefore would have selected LiF over Li3BO3 to modify the solid electrolyte comprising the 3LiOH·Li2SO4 phase because the atomic radius of fluorine is smaller than the atomic radius of boron.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that Li3BO3 would improve the conductivity of the solid electrolyte comprising the 3LiOH·Li2SO4 phase based on Kawakami’s teaching that both LiF and Li3BO3 are known to improve conductivity in inorganic solid electrolytes and Singh’s teaching that LiF improves the conductivity of the solid electrolyte comprising the 3LiOH·Li2SO4 phase. Regarding the relative size of fluorine and boron, Singh teaches the relationship between anion size and conductivity reverses as temperature increases (p. 269, col. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami (US 2010/0047691 A1) in view of Singh (Li2SO4:LiOH eutectic system, a promising solid electrolyte, 1988; cited 04/23/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Kawakami discloses an all-solid-state secondary battery comprising a solid electrolyte ([0013]).
Kawakami discloses that an inorganic compound can be used as the solid electrolyte ([0048]), but does not disclose wherein the solid electrolyte is identified as 3LiOH·Li2SO4 by X-ray diffractometry.
Singh teaches a solid electrolyte comprising 10 mol% LiF added to Li2SO4:LiOH (p. 270 c. 2 ll. 6-9). The electrolyte includes a phase identified as 3LiOH·Li2SO4 (C-phase, p. 269 c. 2 ll. 1-3) by X-ray diffractometry (XRD, p. 268 c. 1 ¶3). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the battery of Kawakami to use the solid electrolyte of Singh, which is identified as 3LiOH·Li2SO4 by X-ray diffractometry, because Singh teaches that it has high conductivity and could be utilized for application in power sources (p. 270 c. 2 ll. 6-9). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP § 2144.07].
Singh teaches that the conductivity of the Li2SO4:LiOH solid electrolyte increases with the addition of LiF in an amount up to 10 mol% (Fig. 3, p. 269 bridging p. 270), but Kawakami in view of Singh does not disclose wherein the solid electrolyte further comprises boron.
However, Kawakami teaches that the conductivity of solid electrolyte materials can be improved by adding lithium compounds such as LiF or Li3BO3 ([0048]). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to further modify the battery of Kawakami to substitute Li3BO3 for LiF, such that the solid electrolyte further comprises boron instead of fluoride, with a reasonable expectation that the Li3BO3 would have a similar effect to LiF, as Kawakami teaches that both compounds can be used to improve ion conductivity ([0048]).
Kawakami in view of Singh does not disclose wherein a molar ratio B/S of boron B to sulfur S contained in the solid electrolyte is 0.010 to 0.20.
However, Singh teaches that the conductivity of the Li2SO4:LiOH solid electrolyte increases with the addition of LiF in an amount up to 10 mol% (Fig. 3, p. 269 bridging p. 270). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would therefore find it obvious have tried using Li3BO3 in an amount of 10 mol% in the electrolyte of modified Kawakami, thereby yielding an electrolyte with a molar ratio B/S of boron B to sulfur S of 0.10, which reads on the claimed range of “0.010 to 0.20,” with a reasonable expectation of maximizing the conductivity of the solid electrolyte.
Alternatively, Singh teaches that the concentration of the conductivity additive is a result effective variable. Addition of LiX (X = F, Cl, Br, and I) to the Li2SO4:LiOH electrolyte reduces the concentration of LiOH and 3LiOH·Li2SO4, which are respectively responsible for low- and high-temperature conductivity in the unmodified electrolyte (p. 269 c. 2 ¶1). However, the contribution of the X ion, which enhances conductivity of the electrolyte by providing mobile lithium, is bigger with higher concentrations of LiX. Singh teaches that conductivity of the electrolyte increases with LiF content up to 10 mol% LiF (Fig. 3, p. 269 bridging p. 270). However, Singh also teaches that the contribution of the X ion depends on temperature and the atomic radius of X (p. 269 c. 2 ¶1-2). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would therefore find it obvious to have maximized the conductivity of the electrolyte of modified Kawakami at the desired operating temperature by optimizing the concentration of Li3BO3, including to an amount corresponding to “a molar ratio B/S of boron B to sulfur S of 0.010 to 0.20,” in order to balance the competing effects of reduced LiOH/3LiOH·Li2SO4 content and increased Li3BO3 content [MPEP § 2144.05(II)A].
Regarding claim 3, Kawakami in view of Singh teaches the all-solid-state secondary battery according to claim 1, but is silent as to whether a full-width at half-maximum of a peak in the vicinity of 2θ = 18.4° identified as 3LiOH·Li2SO4 is 0.500° or less in an X-ray diffraction pattern of the solid electrolyte observed with a radiation source of CuKα.
However, the electrolyte of Kawakami in view of Singh is substantially similar to that of the claimed invention and has the same composition. The electrolyte would therefore be expected to exhibit the same XRD peaks. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established [MPEP § 2112.01].
Regarding claim 4, Kawakami in view of Singh teaches the all-solid-state secondary battery according to claim 1, but is silent as to whether the solid electrolyte is such that an ILiOH/ILHS ratio of a peak intensity ILiOH in the vicinity of 2θ = 20.5° identified as LiOH to a peak intensity ILHS in the vicinity of 2θ = 18.4° identified as 3LiOH·Li2SO4 is less than 0.234 in the X-ray diffraction pattern of the solid electrolyte observed with the radiation source of CuKα.
However, the electrolyte of Kawakami in view of Singh is substantially similar to that of the claimed invention and has the same composition. The electrolyte would therefore be expected to exhibit the same XRD peaks. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established [MPEP § 2112.01].
Regarding claim 5, Kawakami in view of Singh teaches the all-solid-state secondary battery according to claim 1, but is silent as to whether the solid electrolyte is such that an lLi2SO4/ILHS ratio of a peak intensity ILi2SO4 in the vicinity of 2θ = 22.2° identified as Li2SO4 to the peak intensity ILHS in the vicinity of 2θ = 18.4° identified as 3LiOH·Li2SO4 is less than 1.10 in the X-ray diffraction pattern of the solid electrolyte observed with the radiation source of CuKα.
However, the electrolyte of Kawakami in view of Singh is substantially similar to that of the claimed invention and has the same composition. The electrolyte would therefore be expected to exhibit the same XRD peaks. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established [MPEP § 2112.01].
Regarding claim 6, Kawakami in view of Singh teaches the all-solid-state secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the solid electrolyte is a melt-solidified body (Singh: p. 268 c. 1 ¶3).
Regarding claim 7, Kawakami in view of Singh teaches the all-solid-state secondary battery according to claim 1, comprising the solid electrolyte between a positive electrode and a negative electrode (Kawakami: [0080]).
Regarding claim 8, Kawakami in view of Singh teaches the all-solid-state secondary battery according to claim 7, wherein the positive electrode contains a lithium composite oxide expressed as LixMO2, where 0.05<x<1.10, and M is at least one transition metal selected from the group consisting of Co, Ni, Mn, and Al (Kawakami: [0014]-[0016]), and the negative electrode contains a carbon-based material, metal, or metalloid including any one of Li, In, Al, Sn, Sb, and Si, or an alloy thereof (Kawakami: [0041]-[0043]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE C. DISNEY whose telephone number is (703)756-1076. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 MT.
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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/C.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723