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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 18-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-17 and 20, in the reply filed on 11/25/2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 10/21/2022, 10/21/2022, 10/21/2022, 10/21/2022, 10/21/2022, 04/19/2023, and 05/22/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 07/18/2022 were reviewed and are acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 07/18/2022 was reviewed and is acceptable.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-13, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura et al. (JP 2014172812 A, hereinafter Kimura).
Regarding Claims 1 and 6-9, Kimura discloses the limitations regarding a method of producing lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide (LLZO) particles (Kimura, method for producing a lithium ion conductive oxide, [0009]), the method comprising:
heating a multiphase material comprising lithium carbonate and La2Zr2O7 (Kimura, La2Zr2O7, Li2CO3, and a lanthanum compound may be calcined, and the calcination step is preferably 100 to 700 °C for 1 to 10 hours, [0018, 0021-0023]) in the presence of hydrogen gas (Kimura, the calcination atmosphere is not particular limited and may be an air atmosphere, [0018]; the Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that air comprises of hydrogen gas) at a temperature below the melting point of the lithium carbonate (Kimura, La2Zr2O7, Li2CO3, and a lanthanum compound may be calcined, and the calcination step is preferably 100 to 700 °C for 1 to 10 hours, [0018, 0021-0023]),
heating the lithium oxide to a temperature sufficient to crystallize the lithium oxide to form lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide (LLZO) particles (Kimura, La2Zr2O7, Li2CO3, and a lanthanum compound were prepared, mixed, and placed in a crucible and heated in an electric furnace for 12 hours, the heating temperatures were 700 oC, 750 oC, and 800 oC, and the product obtained was a garnet-type compound Li7La3Zr2O12, [0021-0023]).
MPEP 2112.01 teaches that 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With respect to the limitations:
at least a portion of the lithium carbonate decomposes to form lithium oxide (Claim 1);
the portion of the lithium carbonate that decomposes to form lithium oxide is at least 50% by weight of the lithium carbonate in the multiphase material (Claim 6);
the portion of the lithium carbonate that decomposes to form lithium oxide is at least 75% by weight of the lithium carbonate in the multiphase material (Claim 7);
the portion of the lithium carbonate that decomposes to form lithium oxide is at least 90% by weight of the lithium carbonate in the multiphase material (Claim 8);
the portion of the lithium carbonate that decomposes to form lithium oxide is at least 99% by weight of the lithium carbonate in the multiphase material (Claim 9);
it is submitted that such limitations are simply measurements of, and thus descriptions of, inherent composition of the recited lithium ion conductive oxide.
Applicant discloses when the heat treatment is undergone in the presence of hydrogen gas, it has been found that the lithium carbonate may decompose to lithium oxide with little particle growth at temperatures as low as 600 °C (see Instant Specification [0052]), and the total heating of the multiphase material is about 1 hour to about 10 hours (see Instant Specification [0026]).
Accordingly, it is reasonably interpreted that the heating of lithium carbonate in the presence of hydrogen gas is critical to the recited lithium oxide composition such that it would fulfil the recited measurements and necessarily possess a similar composition.
Kimura discloses La2Zr2O7, Li2CO3, and a lanthanum compound may be calcined, and the calcination step is preferably 100 to 700 °C for 1 to 10 hours in an air atmosphere (Kimura, [0018, 0021-0023]).
It is submitted that the recited lithium ion conductive oxide of Kimura is substantially similar to the instant lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide such that the lithium ion conductive oxide of Kimura would reasonably possess the same properties and exhibit the same results.
Therefore, based upon such substantial similarities, it appears reasonable that the lithium ion conductive oxide of Kimura would inherently possess a similar composition, e.g. lithium oxide weight percentage, such that the lithium ion conductive oxide of Kimura would necessarily fulfill the recited limitations, i.e.
at least a portion of the lithium carbonate decomposes to form lithium oxide (Claim 1);
the portion of the lithium carbonate that decomposes to form lithium oxide is at least 50% by weight of the lithium carbonate in the multiphase material (Claim 6);
the portion of the lithium carbonate that decomposes to form lithium oxide is at least 75% by weight of the lithium carbonate in the multiphase material (Claim 7);
the portion of the lithium carbonate that decomposes to form lithium oxide is at least 90% by weight of the lithium carbonate in the multiphase material (Claim 8);
the portion of the lithium carbonate that decomposes to form lithium oxide is at least 99% by weight of the lithium carbonate in the multiphase material (Claim 9);
Assuming, arguendo, that the compositions are not inherent, it is submitted that before the effective filing date of the current invention, one having ordinary skill in the art would find the compositions obvious over the instant lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide. The skilled artisan would reasonably find that the lithium ion conductive oxide of Kimura is so similar to the instant lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide, that lithium ion conductive oxide of Kimura would also have a similar lithium oxide weight percentage.
Regarding Claim 2, Kimura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kimura discloses the limitations regarding a method (Kimura, method for producing a lithium ion conductive oxide, [0009]), wherein the LLZO further comprises one or more dopants (Kimura, other compounds may be blended into the mixed raw material in accordance with the composition of the desired lithium ion conductive oxide, such as aluminum compounds and niobium compounds, [0013]).
Regarding Claim 3, Kimura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kimura discloses the limitations regarding a method (Kimura, method for producing a lithium ion conductive oxide, [0009]), wherein the one or more dopants comprise at least one of aluminum (Al) and niobium (Nb) (Kimura, other compounds may be blended into the mixed raw material in accordance with the composition of the desired lithium ion conductive oxide, such as aluminum compounds and niobium compounds, [0013]).
Regarding Claim 5, Kimura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kimura discloses the limitations regarding a method (Kimura, method for producing a lithium ion conductive oxide, [0009]), wherein the multiphase material further comprises at least one of ZrO2 and La2O3 (Kimura, ZrO2, La2O3 may be blended into the mixed raw material, [0013]).
Regarding Claim 10, Kimura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kimura discloses the limitations regarding a method (Kimura, method for producing a lithium ion conductive oxide, [0009]), further comprising forming a thin film from the LLZO particles (Kimura, Li7La3Zr2O12 as a solid electrolyte in an all-solid-state Li secondary battery, [0002])
Regarding Claim 11, Kimura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kimura discloses the limitations regarding a method (Kimura, method for producing a lithium ion conductive oxide, [0009]).
MPEP 2112.01 teaches that 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With respect to the limitations “at least a portion of the lithium carbonate forms lithium peroxide upon heating the multiphase material,” it is submitted that such limitations are simply measurements of, and thus descriptions of, inherent composition of the recited lithium ion conductive oxide.
Applicant discloses that lithium carbonate forms lithium peroxide upon heating the multiphase material (see Instant Specification [0027]).
Accordingly, it is reasonably interpreted that the heating of lithium carbonate is critical to the recited lithium peroxide composition such that it would fulfil the recited measurements and necessarily possess similar compositions.
Kimura discloses La2Zr2O7, Li2CO3, and a lanthanum compound may be calcined, and the calcination step is preferably 100 to 700 °C for 1 to 10 hours in an air atmosphere (Kimura, [0018, 0021-0023]).
It is submitted that the recited lithium ion conductive oxide of Kimura is substantially similar to the instant lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide such that the lithium ion conductive oxide of Kimura would reasonably possess the same composition.
Therefore, based upon such substantial similarities, it appears reasonable that the lithium ion conductive oxide of Kimura would inherently possess a similar composition, e.g. lithium peroxide, such that the lithium ion conductive oxide of Kimura would necessarily fulfill the recited limitations, i.e. at least a portion of the lithium carbonate forms lithium peroxide upon heating the multiphase material.
Assuming, arguendo, that the compositions are not inherent, it is submitted that before the effective filing date of the current invention, one having ordinary skill in the art would find the compositions obvious over the instant lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide. The skilled artisan would reasonably find that the lithium ion conductive oxide of Kimura is so similar to the instant lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide, that lithium ion conductive oxide of Kimura would also have a similar lithium oxide weight percentage.
Regarding Claim 12, Kimura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kimura discloses the limitations regarding a method (Kimura, method for producing a lithium ion conductive oxide, [0009]), wherein the lithium oxide is heated at a temperature above 600 °C (Kimura, the firing temperature is preferably 730 to 900 °C, [0017]; the disclosed range of 730 to 900 °C falls within the claimed range of above 600 °C. The Examiner notes that lithium oxide is produced from the lithium carbonate after the calcining step).
Regarding Claim 13, Kimura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kimura discloses the limitations regarding a method (Kimura, method for producing a lithium ion conductive oxide, [0009]), wherein the lithium oxide is heated to a temperature above 640 °C (Kimura, the firing temperature is preferably 730 to 900 °C, [0017]; the disclosed range of 730 to 900 °C falls within the claimed range of above 640 °C. The Examiner notes that lithium oxide is produced from the lithium carbonate after the calcining step).
Regarding Claim 16, Kimura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kimura discloses the limitations regarding a method (Kimura, method for producing a lithium ion conductive oxide, [0009]), wherein an amount of lithium loss that occurs during the method is less than 3% by weight (Kimura, when the firing step temperature is performed in the preferred range of 730 to 900°C for 1 to 20 hours, the raw materials can be sufficiently reacted with each other, and evaporation of the lithium raw material can be sufficiently suppressed, [0017]; the Examiner notes that since the evaporation of the lithium raw material can be sufficiently suppressed when the firing step is performed in the preferred conditions, the amount of lithium loss will be 0%, so the disclosed range of 0% falls within the claimed range of less than 3% by weight).
Regarding Claim 20, Kimura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kimura discloses the limitations regarding a lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide (LLZO) material formed (Kimura, the product obtained was a garnet-type compound Li7La3Zr2O12, [0021-0023]) by a method (Kimura, method for producing a lithium ion conductive oxide, [0009]) comprising:
heating a multiphase material comprising lithium carbonate and La2Zr2O7 (Kimura, La2Zr2O7, Li2CO3, and a lanthanum compound may be calcined, and the calcination step is preferably 100 to 700 °C for 1 to 10 hours, [0018, 0021-0023]) in the presence of hydrogen gas (Kimura, the calcination atmosphere is not particular limited and may be an air atmosphere, [0018]; the Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that air comprises of hydrogen gas) at a temperature below the melting point of the lithium carbonate (Kimura, La2Zr2O7, Li2CO3, and a lanthanum compound may be calcined, and the calcination step is preferably 100 to 700 °C for 1 to 10 hours, [0018, 0021-0023]),
heating the lithium oxide to a temperature sufficient to crystallize the lithium oxide to form lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide (LLZO) particles (Kimura, La2Zr2O7, Li2CO3, and a lanthanum compound were prepared, mixed, and placed in a crucible and heated in an electric furnace for 12 hours, the heating temperatures were 700 oC, 750 oC, and 800 oC, and the product obtained was a garnet-type compound Li7La3Zr2O12, [0021-0023]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura et al. (JP 2014172812 A, hereinafter Kimura), as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Beck et al. (US 20210194045 A1, hereinafter Beck).
Regarding Claim 4, Kimura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kimura discloses the limitations regarding a method (Kimura, method for producing a lithium ion conductive oxide, [0009]). Kimura is silent regarding the LLZO comprises at least one of LaAlO3 or La2(Li0.5Al0.5)O4.
Beck discloses a LLZO (Beck, lithium-stuffed garnet electrolytes having the formula Li7La3Zr2O12, and having a secondary phase inclusion, Abstract) comprises at least one of LaAlO3 or La2(Li0.5Al0.5)O4 (Beck, the secondary phase inclusion is a material selected from the group consisting of LaAlO3 and La2(Li0.5Al0.5)O4, [0094]).
Beck teaches that having a secondary phase inclusion have improved electrochemical and processing properties (Beck, [0023]).
Kimura and Beck are analogous to the current invention as they are all directed towards an oxide composite.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the garnet-type compound Li7La3Zr2O12 of Kimura to have LaAlO3 or La2(Li0.5Al0.5)O4 as a secondary phase inclusion material, as taught by Beck, in order to improve electrochemical and processing properties.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura et al. (JP 2014172812 A, hereinafter Kimura), as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Yoshioka et al. (US 20220344707 A1, hereinafter Yoshioka).
Regarding Claim 14, Kimura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kimura discloses the limitations regarding a method (Kimura, method for producing a lithium ion conductive oxide, [0009]).
Kimura discloses that the firing atmosphere is not limited (Kimura, [0017]), but is silent regarding the lithium oxide is heated in oxygen-containing atmosphere.
Yoshioka discloses a method for producing composite oxide powder (Yoshioka, Title) wherein the lithium oxide is heated in oxygen-containing atmosphere (Yoshioka, the firing atmosphere is preferably an oxygen atmosphere, [0077]).
Yoshioka teaches that an oxygen-containing atmosphere can achieve a garnet-type composite oxide (Yoshioka, [0077[).
Kimura and Yoshioka are analogous to the current invention as they are all directed towards a method for producing an oxide composite.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the firing step of Kimura to be performed in an oxygen atmosphere, in order to achieve a garnet-type composite oxide.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Kimura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Kimura discloses the limitations regarding a method (Kimura, method for producing a lithium ion conductive oxide, [0009]), wherein the lithium oxide is heated in the absence of hydrogen gas (Yoshioka, the firing atmosphere is preferably an oxygen atmosphere, [0077]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura et al. (JP 2014172812 A, hereinafter Kimura), as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Stowell et al. (US 20200028155 A1, hereinafter Stowell).
Regarding Claim 19, Kimura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kimura discloses the limitations regarding a method (Kimura, method for producing a lithium ion conductive oxide, [0009]). Kimura is silent regarding forming the multiphase material using a microwave plasma process comprising: inputting one or more feedstock materials into a microwave generated plasma to form the multiphase material; and collecting the multiphase material.
Stowell discloses a method of producing lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide (LLZO) particles (Stowell, a method for producing a structure composite material, Abstract) forming the multiphase material using a microwave plasma process comprising: inputting one or more feedstock materials into a microwave generated plasma to form the multiphase material (Stowell, conductive particles are processed to form the structure composite material using a microwave plasma reactor, [0071]); and collecting the multiphase material (Stowell, the structure composite material can be collected from the reactor, [0072]).
Stowell teaches that structure composite materials produced using the microwave plasma reactor have improved properties compared to conventional composites, such as improving battery performance (Stowell, [0033-0034]).
Kimura and Stowell are analogous to the current invention as they are all directed towards a method for producing an oxide composite.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the starting materials of Kimura to be to be processed in the microwave plasma reactor, as taught by Stowell, in order to improve properties of the oxide composite.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
JP 2014047117 A discloses a method for producing lithium oxide from lithium carbonate in the presence of hydrogen gas [0011].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:50 - 7:50 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, NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752