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
The amendments filed June 6, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-10 and 12 have been amended; support for the amendments can be found in at least paragraphs [0029]-[0033] of the Instant Specification. Claims 14 and 15 are new and are supported at least by paragraph [0030] of the Instant Specification. Claims 1-15 remain pending with claims 10-11 remaining withdrawn. Claims 1-9 and 12-15 have been examined on their merits in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 6, 2025 have been fully considered. Applicant argues that a) Ikejiri in view of Shannon does not teach the amended claim limitations of “a solid electrolyte comprising a glass ceramic having a primary phase and a plurality of secondary phases, the primary phase comprising the chemical composition NaxMSi3O9, wherein M is a rare earth metal, wherein x is 3 or 4 and y is an integer between 1 and 10, and wherein the plurality of secondary phases comprises at least one of the chemical compositions Na5MSi4O12, Na9MSi6O18, Na3MSi2O7, and NaMSiO4” as Ikejiri teaches away from a glass ceramic in favor of monocrystals, and Shannon teaches molten salt electrolyte in high-temperature batteries.
Regarding argument A, Applicant’s argument has been fully considered but are considered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection below in view of Applicant’s amendments to independent claim 1.
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous claim objections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous 112(b) rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (“Microstructural Effects on Conduction Properties of Na5YSi4O12‐Type Glass‐Ceramic Na+‐Fast Ionic Conductors” (1996)), hereinafter referred to as Yamashita, in view of Gao et al. (CN 104466239 A), hereinafter referred to as Gao.
Regarding claim 1, Yamashita teaches glass-ceramic Na+-fast ionic conductors that are polycrystalline materials produced by the controlled crystallization of glasses (“a solid electrolyte comprising a glass ceramic having a primary phase and a plurality of secondary phases”) (see e.g., p. 2180). Yamashita teaches the primary phase of the glass ceramic is represented by the formula: Na3+3x-yR1-xPySi3-yO9 wherein R = Y, Gd, or Sm, x < 0.6, and y < 0.5 (see e.g., p. 2180, Formula 2, and p. 2181). Therefore, Yamashita teaches when x=y=0, the formula Na3MSi3O9 is obtained, satisfying the claim limitation of “the primary phase comprising the chemical composition NaxMSi3O9, wherein M is a rare earth metal, wherein x is 3 or 4 and y is an integer between 1 and 10.” Yamashita teaches secondary phases of Na5MSi4O12 and Na9RSi6O18 (“wherein the plurality of secondary phases comprises at least one of the chemical compositions Na5MSi4O12 and Na9MSi6O18”) (see e.g., p. 2181, Figure 2 and p. 2182).
Yamashita teaches these Na+ materials are known to be fast ionic conductors (see e.g., p. 2180) and have a conductivity of at least 10-3 S/cm at 300°C (see e.g., p. 2181); however, Yamashita does not explicitly teach the solid electrolyte has a conductivity of at least 10-4 S cm-1 at 20°C.
However, Gao teaches a solid electrolyte material comprising a glass ceramic that is used as a membrane electrolyte in electrochemical cells and batteries (see e.g., paragraph [0095], [0119], and [0228]). Gao teaches the glass ceramic (crystalline-amorphous composite) electrolyte in the NASICON (a Na+ super ionic conductor) system (see e.g., paragraphs [0060] and [0103]) can have high ionic conductivity, high thermal stability, and can operate in a wide temperature range (see e.g., paragraph [0056]). Gao teaches the solid electrolyte material, such as a glass ceramic comprising mixed phases (see e.g., paragraph [0098]) is characterized by a room temperature conductivity greater that 10-4 S/cm (“characterized in that the solid electrolyte has a conductivity of at least 10-4 S cm-1 at 20°C”) (see e.g., paragraph [0115]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the glass-ceramic Na+-fast conductors of Yamashita to be a solid electrolyte material characterized in that it has a room temperature conductivity greater that 10-4 S/cm, as taught by Gao, in order to produce a battery or electrochemical cell with high ionic conductivity, high thermal stability, and operability in a wide temperature range (see e.g., paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 2, Yamashita, as modified by Gao, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Yamashita teaches the primary phase of the glass ceramic is represented by the formula: Na3+3x-yR1-xPySi3-yO9 wherein R = Y, Gd, or Sm, x < 0.6, and y < 0.5 (“wherein M is Gd”) (see e.g., p. 2180, Formula 2, and p. 2181).
Regarding claim 3, Yamashita, as modified by Gao, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Yamashita teaches the primary phase is represented by the formula: Na3+3x-yR1-xPySi3-yO9 wherein R = Y, Gd, or Sm, x < 0.6, and y < 0.5 (see e.g., p. 2180, Formula 2, and p. 2181) and the secondary phases of Na5MSi4O12 and Na9RSi6O18 (“wherein the primary phase has the chemical composition Na3GdSi3O9 and the plurality of secondary phases comprise at least one of the chemical compositions Na5GdSi4O12 and Na9GdSi6O18”) (see e.g., p. 2181, Figure 2 and p. 2182).
Regarding claim 4, Yamashita, as modified by Gao, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Yamashita teaches the primary phase is represented by the formula: Na3+3x-yR1-xPySi3-yO9 wherein R = Y, Gd, or Sm, x < 0.6, and y < 0.5 (see e.g., p. 2180, Formula 2, and p. 2181). Yamashita teaches a glass ceramic with a primary phase represented by Na3.9R0.5P0.3Si2.7O9 (see e.g., p. 2182, Composition 4) that was experimentally shown as the most appropriate composition for the crystallization of the Na5MSi4O12 secondary phase (see e.g., p. 2182). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the primary phase of the glass ceramic to have a chemical composition Na4GdSi3O9 as claimed in order to form the crystallization of the Na5MSi4O12 secondary phase (see e.g., p. 2182).
Yamashita teaches the secondary phases of Na5MSi4O12 and Na9RSi6O18 (“the plurality of secondary phases comprise at least one of the chemical compositions Na5GdSi4O12 and Na9GdSi6O18”) (see e.g., p. 2181, Figure 2 and p. 2182).
Regarding claim 5, Yamashita, as modified by Gao, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Yamashita teaches the primary phase of the glass ceramic is represented by the formula: Na3+3x-yR1-xPySi3-yO9 wherein R = Y, Gd, or Sm, x < 0.6, and y < 0.5 (“wherein M is Y”) (see e.g., p. 2180, Formula 2, and p. 2181).
Regarding claim 6, Yamashita, as modified by Gao, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Yamashita teaches the primary phase is represented by the formula: Na3+3x-yR1-xPySi3-yO9 wherein R = Y, Gd, or Sm, x < 0.6, and y < 0.5 (see e.g., p. 2180, Formula 2, and p. 2181) and the secondary phases of Na5MSi4O12 and Na9RSi6O18 (“wherein the primary phase has the chemical composition Na3YSi3O9 and the plurality of secondary phases comprise at least one of the chemical compositions Na5YSi4O12 and Na9YSi6O18”) (see e.g., p. 2181, Figure 2 and p. 2182).
Regarding claim 7, Yamashita, as modified by Gao, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Yamashita teaches an X-ray diffraction pattern of the glass ceramic wherein R = Gd (see e.g., Annotated Figure 4B) in which there are characteristic peaks located at approximately 22, 33, and 34 2θ, meeting the claim limitation of having “a powder X-ray diffraction (PXRD) pattern as shown in Figure 2” as the powder X-ray diffraction (PXRD) pattern in Figure 2 also has characteristic peaks located at approximately 22, 33, and 34 2θ.
PNG
media_image1.png
638
841
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Yamashita Figure 4
With regard to the claim limitation of the “PXRD pattern,” where possible, claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific figure or table "is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim. Incorporation by reference is a necessity doctrine, not for applicant’s convenience." Ex parte Fressola, 27 USPQ2d 1608, 1609 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (see MPEP 2173.05(s)).
Regarding claim 8, Yamashita, as modified by Gao, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Yamashita teaches an X-ray diffraction pattern of the glass ceramic wherein R = Gd (see e.g., Annotated Figure 4B) in which there are characteristic peaks located at approximately 22, 33, and 34 2θ (“having a powder X-ray diffraction (PXRD) pattern with characteristic peaks at 22, 33, and 34 two theta”)
Regarding claim 12, Yamashita, as modified by Gao, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Yamashita, as modified by Gao, teaches a solid electrolyte material comprising a glass ceramic that is used as a membrane electrolyte in electrochemical cells and batteries (“the use of the solid electrolyte as a membrane electrolyte in electrochemical and battery cells”) (see e.g., Gao paragraph [0095], [0119], and [0228]).
Regarding claim 13, Yamashita, as modified by Gao, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Yamashita, as modified by Gao, teaches a solid electrolyte material comprising a glass ceramic that is used as a membrane electrolyte in electrochemical cells and batteries (“a battery comprising the solid electrolyte”) (see e.g., Gao paragraph [0095], [0119], and [0228]).
Regarding claim 14, Yamashita, as modified by Gao, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Yamashita teaches the primary phase of the glass ceramic is represented by the formula: Na3+3x-yR1-xPySi3-yO9 wherein R = Y, Gd, or Sm, x < 0.6, and y < 0.5 (“wherein M is Sm”) (see e.g., p. 2180, Formula 2, and p. 2181).
Regarding claim 15, Yamashita, as modified by Gao, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 14, as previously described.
Yamashita teaches the primary phase is represented by the formula: Na3+3x-yR1-xPySi3-yO9 wherein R = Y, Gd, or Sm, x < 0.6, and y < 0.5 (see e.g., p. 2180, Formula 2, and p. 2181) and the secondary phases of Na5MSi4O12 and Na9RSi6O18 (“wherein the primary phase has the chemical composition Na3SmSi3O9 and the plurality of secondary phases comprise at least one of the chemical compositions Na5SmSi4O12 and Na9SmSi6O18”)(see e.g., p. 2181, Figure 2 and p. 2182).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Yamashita et al. (“Microstructural Effects on Conduction Properties of Na5YSi4O12‐Type Glass‐Ceramic Na+‐Fast Ionic Conductors” (1996)) in view of Gao et al. (CN 104466239 A), and further in view of Shannon (U.S. 4,097,345 A), hereinafter referred to as Shannon.
Regarding claim 9, Yamashita, as modified by Gao, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Yamashita, as modified by Gao, does not explicitly teach the electrolyte having an Archimedes density of about 3.4 gm-3.
However, Shannon teaches the sodium ion-conductive oxide with compounds containing: at least one selected from the group consisting of Y, Si, Na, and O (see e.g., Abstract) that has a density of 2.99 g/cm3 (see e.g., Example 34, a mixture of Na2CO3, Gd2O3- and SiO2) to improve the conductivity of the material as the level of conductivity depends somewhat on the density of the sample (see e.g., col. 6, lines 1-5). Shannon teaches there is a result-effective relationship between the density of the oxide and its conductivity (i.e., an increased density yields an increased conductivity and vice versa (see e.g., col. 6, lines 1-5)).
Therefore, through routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to control the density of the sodium ion-conductive oxide functioning as a solid electrolyte of Yamashita, as modified by Gao, to achieve the desired and/or optimized conductivity based on the result-effective relationship shared between the density and conductivity as taught by Shannon.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Katherine N Higgins whose telephone number is (703)756-1196. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays - Thursdays 7:30-4:30 EST, Fridays 7:30 - 11:30 EST.
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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KATHERINE N HIGGINS/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728