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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1, 6-22 are currently pending. Claims 2-5 are cancelled. Claims 9-20 are withdrawn. Claims 21-22 are new. Claim 1 is currently amended. Claims 1, 6-8, 21-22 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Arguments/Remarks, filed 11/10/2025, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Beck and SCHÄFER do not identify PI as a parameter of interest or link it to improvements in solid electrolyte performance” in pg 7.
In this regard, a new reference Wrobel is directed to a LLZO powder that can be incorporated into solid state lithium ion batteries, the LLZO powder having a crystalline garnet structure and/or an amorphous structure (abstract). Wrobel further teaches that the particles have D50 between about 20 nm and about 500 nm, D10 of D50 ÷ 4 or D50 ÷ 2, and D90 d50 × 4 or d50 × 2 [0028]. Wrobel further teaches that the tight particle size distribution can reduce the occurrence pores and control grain growth which prevents abnormal growth that creates excessively large grains and broad grain size distribution [0030-0031]. See the new rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck (WO2018236394A1, US equivalent US20210194045A1 was used for citation), in view of Wrobel (US20200350542A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 22, Beck discloses a method for producing a solid electrolyte comprising lithium-ion conductive glass-ceramics (“lithium-stuffed garnet electrolytes” in title), the method comprising the steps of:
providing at least one lithium-ion conductor (e.g., Li7La3Zr2O12-(0.22-0.025)Al2O3; Example 1; [0435]), which is primarily cubic phase lithium-stuffed garnet with trace amounts of secondary phase inclusions in the primary phase [0435], wherein the secondary phase may be amorphous [0032].
Thus, Beck envisages the limitation of “providing at least one lithium-ion conductor having a ceramic phase content and an amorphous phase content”.
Beck discloses wherein the primary cubic phase lithium-stuffed garnet is present at about 70-99.9 vol % with the secondary phase inclusions (e.g., La2Zr2O7 [0094]; “impurities” [0006]) are present at about 30-0.1 vol %, respect to the volume of the composition [0305]. It is examiner’s interpretation that the volume amount excluding the secondary phase inclusions (i.e., impurities) is the ion conducting region. Thus, the disclosed vol% of the primary cubic phase lithium-stuffed garnet of 70-99.9 vol% is interpreted as the conducting phase.
Such range overlaps with the claimed range of “an ion conducting phase that is at least 95 vol% of the total amount of a crystalline phase content present in the glass-ceramic”. A person having ordinary skill in the art would select the overlapping range of vol%, as Beck discloses a thin film comprising such lithium garnet showed high RoR strength [0474] and maintained high discharge energy in an electrochemical cell when cycled between 2.7-4.5 V vs Li at a C/3 rate (Fig 10, [0030, 0471]).
Beck further discloses the step of “providing a powder of the at least one lithium-ion conductor” (i.e., calcined powder; [0435])
Beck further discloses that D50 may range from about 0.5 μm-10 μm [0075] and D90 may range from 1 μm to 5 μm [0076].
However, Beck does not disclose D10 of the powder, therefore, does not disclose “wherein the powder has a polydispersity index between 0.5 and 1.3” as claimed, wherein the polydispersity index is calculated using PI = log(d90/d10) according to pg 4, lines 15-19 of the instant specification.
In this regard, Wrobel is also directed to a high purity LLZO powder with a small particle size and narrow size distribution that can be incorporated into solid state lithium ion batteries (abstract, [0003]), wherein a structure of the LLZO particles is a crystalline garnet structure and/or an amorphous structure [0025]. Wrobel further teaches that the particles can be 99% crystalline and 1% amorphous [0026].
Wrobel further provides the particle size of the powder [0028], wherein:
For example, D50 is 200nm [0028] (or between about 20 nm and about 500 nm [0028])
D10 is 100nm or 50nm [0028] (or D50 ÷ 4 or D50 ÷ 2) [0028]
D90 is 400nm or 800nm (or d50 × 4 or d50 × 2)[0028]
wherein person having ordinary skill in the art would use the polydispersity index formula (PI=log(d90/d10)) and recognize that the PI ranges from 0.6-1.2, which falls within the claimed range of “0.5 and 1.3” (claim 1) and significantly overlaps with the claimed range of “0.5 and 1.15” (claim 22).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have selected the taught and/or the overlapping portion of the taught range of polydispersity index for the garnet powder of Beck, since Wrobel teaches that having a narrow particle size distribution can reduce the occurrence pores and further control grain growth to prevent abnormal growth that creates excessively large grains and broad grain size distribution [Wrobel 0030-0031].
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the taught range and/or the overlapping portion of the range of the polydispersity index, as Wrobel teaches that having narrow particle size distribution can reduce the occurrence pores and further control grain growth to prevent abnormal growth that creates excessively large grains and broad grain size distribution [Wrobel 0030-0031].
Beck further discloses forming an element with the powder (i.e., forming a sintered pellet in Example 2; [0436].
Regarding claim 6-7, modified Beck teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one lithium-ion conductor comprises a garnet type structure (i.e., Li7La3Zr2O12-(0.22-0.025)Al2O3 [Beck 0435]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Beck teaches the method according to claim 1. Beck further discloses the primary cubic phase lithium-stuffed garnet is present at about 70-99.9 vol % with respect to the volume of the composition [Beck 0305]. Thus, Beck envisages the limitation of wherein the ceramic phase content is a majority of a total content of the at least one lithium-ion conductor.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck (WO2018236394A1, US equivalent US20210194045A1 was used for citation), in view of Wrobel (US20200350542A1) and SCHÄFER (WO2021048249A1, US20220336841A1 was used for citation, previously cited).
Regarding claim 21, modified Beck teaches the method according to claim 1.
Beck does not disclose wherein the method comprises the step of incorporating the powder into a polymer electrolyte or a polyelectrolyte.
In this regard, SCHÄFER teaches a method for producing mixed oxides comprising lithium, zirconium, and optionally at least one other than Li and Zr metal (abstract), wherein the Li-La-Zr-Al mixed oxide is further mixed with polyethylene oxide and LiTFSI to form a hybrid solid electrolyte membrane [SCHÄFER 0130], wherein a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that mixing the PEO and LiTFSI creates a polymer electrolyte, as claimed.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the powder of Beck into a powder electrolyte (i.e., PEO+LiTFSI), as SCHÄFER teaches that the all-solid-state battery comprising the hybrid solid electrolyte membrane comprising a mixture of LLZO ceramic powder, PEO, and LiTFSI showed the highest capacity of 140 mAh/g at 0.1C discharge and the lowest impedance [SCHÄFER 0158].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEYOUNG SON whose telephone number is (703)756-1427. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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 Leong can be reached at (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.
/T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 3/10/2026