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 .
SOLID-STATE ELECTROLYTE FILM
Examiner: Adam Arciero SN: 17/519,185 Art Unit: 1727 January 24, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 05, 2025 has been entered. Claims 21-22 and 30-38 are currently pending. Claim 21 has been amended. Claims 23-24 and 27 have been canceled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Holme, Sung and Schneider on claims 21-24, 27, 30-34 and 36-38 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the independent claim.
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Holme, Sung, Schneider and Visco on claim 35 is withdrawn because Applicant has amended the independent claim.
Claim(s) 21-22, 30-34 and 36-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holme et al. (US 2015/0200420 A1; as found in IDS dated 11/04/2021) in view of Sung et al. (US 2015/0130115 A1) and Schneider et al. (US 2016/0329598 A1).
As to Claims 21-22 and 33-34, Holme et al. discloses a solid-state electrolyte for use as an electrolyte (separator positioned between the anode and cathode) in a lithium battery comprising LiaAldLabZrcMe”eOf; wherein 5<a<7.7; 2<b<4; 0<c≤2.5; 0≤d<2; 0≤e<2, 10<f<13, which overlaps with the claimed material (Abstract and paragraphs [0144]). Holme et al. further discloses the thickness of the solid electrolyte layer to be about 10 nm to about 250 microns, which overlaps with the claimed invention (paragraph [0289] and [0485]). The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05, I. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the solid electrolyte material to read on the claimed material and to modify the thickness of the electrolyte to fall within the claimed range because Holme et al. teaches that the electrolyte and electrodes have an improved interfacial contact (paragraph [0322]). Holme et al. does not specifically wherein the solid electrolyte film comprises 70-95 wt% cubic.
However, Sung et al. teaches of an LLZO solid electrolyte that comprises both a cubic phase and a secondary tetragonal phase and further teaches wherein the cubic phase is most preferable and the content thereof is a result-effective variable in providing a solid electrolyte with improved conductivity (paragraph [0034]). The courts have held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable before the determination of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05, II, B. Furthermore, generally differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. See MPEP 214405, II, A. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a solid electrolyte material of modified Holme to comprise at the caliemd amount of cubic phase because Sung teaches that a solid electrolyte material with increased conductivity can be provided (paragraph [0034]).
As to Claim 30, Holme et al. discloses wherein the film has a porosity less than 10% (paragraph [0207]).
As to Claim 31, Holme et al. discloses wherein the surface roughness of the film is less than 5 microns (paragraph [0247]). The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05, I. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the surface roughness of the electrolyte to fall within the claimed ranges because Holme et al. teaches that the electrolyte and electrodes have an improved interfacial contact (paragraph [0322]).
As to Claim 32, Holme discloses wherein the electrolyte is designed so as to minimize defects such that the electrolyte is suitable for lithium batteries (paragraph [0006]). Holme recognizes that the defects of the electrolyte are a result-effective variable that can be controlled so that the material can be suitable for use in a lithium battery. The courts have held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterizes as routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05, II, B. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the defects of the electrolyte to fall within the claimed ranges because Holme et al. teaches that the electrolyte and electrodes have an improved interfacial contact (paragraph [0322]).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holme et al. (US 2015/0200420 A1; as found in IDS dated 11/04/2021) in view of Sung et al. (US 2015/0130115 A1) as applied to claims 21-22, 30-34 and 36-38 above and in further view of Visco et al. (US 2014/0170465 A1).
As to Claim 35, modified Holme does not specifically disclose the claimed microporous separator.
However, Visco et al. teaches of a lithium battery comprising a microporous separator and a solid electrolyte film comprising a lithium ion conducting oxide having a garnet like structure (paragraphs [0040, 0050 and 0056]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of modified Holme to comprise a microporous membrane with the solid electrolyte film because Visco teaches that such structures have high ionic conductivity and do not depend off of liquid electrolytes for the ionically conductive properties (paragraph [0051]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
a) The prior arts do not teach a composition containing the claimed amount of cubic phase (claim 21).
b) Sung teaches that it is advantageous to synthesize only the cubic phase and does not disclose the presence of Al and therefore it is not obvious to combine the references (claim 21).
c) The combination of the references destroy the intent of the references (claim 21).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
a) Sung teaches it is preferable to mainly comprise cubic phase, as discussed above. Sung is therefore recognizing the amount of cubic phase a result-effective variable. The courts have held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable before the determination of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05, II, B. Furthermore, the courts have also held that generally, differences in concentration will not support patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical, see MPEP 2144.05, II, A.
b) Sung teaches the claimed tetragonal phase and does not exclude it or teach away from its presence (paragraph [0034]). Sung further teaches the presence of Al for enhancing physical properties (title and paragraph [0003 and 0034]) and therefore provides a proper teaching and motivation for combining with the teachings of Holme. Applicant’s have not provide evidence to data to show that the claimed invention is not obvious.
c) In response to applicant's argument that Sung is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the references do not teach away from each other or destroy the intent of each other and Sung provides proper motivation and teaching to modify Holme.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727