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 Claims
Applicant’s amendment to the specification arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered. No amendments to the claims have been filed.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Office action mailed 08/26/2025 have been maintained. The objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tanaka et al. WO2021250985A1 (cited in 08/26/2025 Office action; US version US20230103996A1 used as an English language equivalent).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Tanaka discloses a halide-based nanocomposite (“solid electrolyte material”, abstract) for a solid electrolyte of a lithium-ion battery. While Tanaka does not disclose an exact composition of the nanocomposite, Tanaka discloses the use of identical raw materials and a substantially identical process of manufacturing the halide-based nanocomposite such that the prior art product seems to be identical; see MPEP 2112 III.
In particular, an experimental example (see Example 5, [0138]) is produced using a 1:1 molar ratio of Li2O and ZrCl4 as raw materials, identical to Applicant’s Example 2 (Instant specification, pp. 24-25 Table 1). Tanaka’s experimental example is then subjected to mechanical milling in a planetary ball mill at 600 RPM in a dry air atmosphere for 24 hours (Tanaka [0111]), which appears substantially similar to the process recited in the instant specification comprising mechanical milling at 600 rpm under an Ar atmosphere for 10 hours (Instant specification, pp. 24 ln 14-18).
While Tanaka does not explicitly indicate the composition of Example 5 in terms of Chemical Formula 3 in claim 1, one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the nanocomposite of Tanaka Example 5 to inherently comprise a formula substantially similar to, if not identical to that of Applicant Example 2 being 2LiCl-ZrO2-Li2ZrCl6 (Instant specification, pp. 24-25 Table 1; see MPEP 2112 III), which is represented in Chemical Formula 3 of claim 1 as M1Oc-LiX-LiaM1Xb wherein M1 is Zr, X is Cl, a=2, b=6, c=2 and is recited in the Markush group of claim 7.
Assuming arguendo that Applicant proves that the materials and procedures used to produce Tanaka Example 5 are incapable of producing a nanocomposite within the range of compositions recited by Chemical Formula 3, or more specifically, a nanocomposite with the formula 2LiCl-ZrO2-Li2ZrCl6, Tanaka discloses other experimental embodiments prepared using different types and proportions of raw materials which may be suitably combined by one having ordinary skill in the art to produce a nanocomposite with the composition as claimed. For example, Tanaka Example 6 produced with Li2O:ZrCl4=1.5:1 comprises an increased proportion of Li and O ([0139]), Example 7 produced with Li2O2:ZrCl4=1:2 comprises more Zr and Cl ([0140]), and Example 3 produced with Li2O2:ZrCl4=1:1 comprises more O ([0136]). It would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to combine or substitute different raw materials of Tanaka’s experimental examples in order to arrive at a certain portion of the range of compositions recited in Chemical Formula 3 of claim 1, or at a particular composition recited in the group of claim 7; see MPEP 2144.06 I, II and 2144.05 I.
Such a combination or substitution would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as Tanaka recognizes a broad range of raw materials as suitable for the purpose of forming the halide-based nanocomposite provided that ratios of O to a halide Cl, Br, I and of Li to a metal Ti, Zr, Hf are maintained within a suitable range ([0023-0024], [0042-0043], MPEP 2144.06 I, II).
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka, or modified Tanaka discloses the halide-based nanocomposite for a solid electrolyte of a lithium-ion battery according to claim 1.
Tanaka Example 5, comprising a substantially similar if not identical composition to Applicant Example 2 (see discussion of claim 1), would be expected to comprise a content of LiX (LiCl) of about 21.58 vol%, a content of M1Oc (ZrO2) of about 11.43 vol%, and a content of LiaM1Xb (Li2ZrCl6) of about 66.99 vol% (Applicant pp. 25-26 Table 2), which falls within the claimed ranges of LiX being 1-29 vol%, M1Oc being 1-13 vol% and LiaM1Xb being 65-94 vol%.
Assuming arguendo that Applicant proves that the materials and procedures used to produce Tanaka Example 5 are incapable of producing the nanocomposite of claim 1 or of producing a nanocomposite having a content of LiX being 1-29 vol%, M1Oc being 1-13 vol% and LiaM1Xb being 65-94 vol%, Tanaka discloses a range of other experimental embodiments with different raw materials which would comprise varying proportions of LiX, M1Oc, and LiaM1Xb and which may be suitably combined or substituted as equivalents for the same purpose; see MPEP 2144.06 I and II. As such, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to combine or substitute different compositions of Tanaka’s experimental examples in order to arrive within the range of volume compositions this claim; see MPEP 2144.06 I, II and 2144.05 I.
Such a combination or substitution would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as Tanaka recognizes a broad range of raw materials as suitable for the purpose of forming the halide-based nanocomposite so long as ratios of O to a halide Cl, Br, I and of Li to a metal Ti, Zr, Hf are maintained within a suitable range (Tanaka [0023-0024], [0042-0043], MPEP 2144.06 I, II).
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka, or modified Tanaka, discloses the halide-based nanocomposite for a solid electrolyte of a lithium-ion battery according to claim 1.
Tanaka Example 5 comprises a halide-based nanocomposite appearing identical to the nanocomposite of Applicant Example 2, and would therefore be expected to have an ion conductivity of 1.28 mS/cm at 30 °C (Instant specification, pp. 25-26 Table 2; MPEP 2112 III).
Assuming arguendo that Applicant proves that the materials and procedures used to produce Tanaka Example 5 are incapable of producing the halide-based nanocomposite of claim 1, or producing a nanocomposite appreciably similar to Applicant Example 2, Tanaka further discloses the halide-based nanocomposite comprises an ionic conductivity of at least 0.7 mS/cm at similar conditions (“near room temperature”, Tanaka [0146]) in order to maintain stable operation of a battery comprising the nanocomposite in an environment with temperature variations ([0028-0029]), which overlaps with a portion of the claimed range between 0.7-5 mS/cm; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 9, Tanaka, or modified Tanaka, discloses the halide-based nanocomposite for a solid electrolyte of a lithium-ion battery according to claim 1 wherein the halide-based nanocomposite has both an amorphous phase and a crystalline phase (Tanaka [0035]), broadly and reasonably interpreted as having a glass (“amorphous”) - ceramic crystal (“crystalline”) structure.
Regarding claim 10, Tanaka, or modified Tanaka, discloses an electrode active material 1100 (“electrode material”) in a positive electrode 201 (Tanaka [0066], FIGs. 1, 2) being a positive electrode active material 1100 for a lithium-ion battery comprising a core 206 comprising a positive electrode active material ([0066], FIG. 2) and a shell 216 (“coating layer”) surrounding the surface of the core 206 and comprising the halide-based nanocomposite according to claim 1 ([0067]).
Regarding claim 11, Tanaka, or modified Tanaka, discloses a solid electrolyte 202 (“electrolyte layer”) for a lithium-ion battery comprising the halide-based nanocomposite according to claim 1 (Tanaka [0074-0075], FIG. 1) and a sulfide-based solid electrolyte ([0087]).
Regarding claim 12, Tanaka, or modified Tanaka, discloses the solid electrolyte for a lithium-ion battery according to claim 11 wherein the sulfide-based solid electrolyte is Li10GeP2S12 ([0089]), which falls within the claimed range of sulfide-based solid electrolytes having the formula Li10+a[GebM4+ 1-b]1+aP2-aS12-cXc wherein M4+ is Si, Sn, X is Cl, Br, I, 0≤a≤2 (a=0), 0≤b≤1 (b=1), and 0≤c≤4 (c=0).
Regarding claim 13, Tanaka, or modified Tanaka, discloses a second electrolyte layer provided between the electrolyte layer 202 and negative electrode 203 (Tanaka [0077], FIG. 1) which together comprise a double-layer solid electrolyte for a lithium-ion battery, comprising a solid electrolyte 202 for a positive electrode ([0077], FIG. 1), comprising the halide-based nanocomposite according to claim 1 ([0072]). Tanaka further discloses a solid electrolyte for a negative electrode (“another solid electrolyte material”, [0077]) formed on the solid electrolyte for a positive electrode and comprising a solid electrolyte material that is electrochemically more stable in a reduction potential ([0077]). Such a material is understood to include a sulfide-based electrolyte, which is noted to be electrochemically stable with respect to the negative electrode active material ([0095]) where a reduction potential is known to occur.
Regarding claim 14, Tanaka, or modified Tanaka, discloses an all-solid-state battery (Tanaka [0152]) comprising a positive electrode 201; a negative electrode 203; and the solid electrolyte 202 according to claim 11, which is disposed between the positive electrode 201 and the negative electrode 203 (Tanaka FIG. 1, [0051]).
Regarding claim 15, Tanaka, or modified Tanaka, discloses an all-solid-state battery (Tanaka [0152]) comprising: a positive electrode 201; a negative electrode 203; and the double-layer solid electrolyte ([0077]) according to claim 13, which is disposed between the positive electrode 201 and the negative electrode 203, wherein the positive electrode 201 is positioned on the solid electrolyte for a positive electrode 202 of the double-layer solid electrolyte, and the negative electrode 203 is positioned on the solid electrolyte for a negative electrode (“second electrolyte layer”, [0077]).
Claims 5 and 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tanaka as applied to claim 1, further as evidenced by NPL Dodd et al. “Synthesis of nanocrystalline ZrO2 powders by mechanochemical reaction of ZrCl4 with LiOH” (copy in 08/26/2025 Office action)
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka, or modified Tanaka, discloses the halide-based nanocomposite for a solid electrolyte of a lithium-ion battery according to claim 1. While Tanaka does not explicitly disclose that the nanocomposite comprises M1Oc being in-situ grown ZrO2, Applicant disclosure and evidentiary reference Dodd indicates that a broad range of raw materials and procedures suitably result in the in-situ growth of ZrO2 in the nanocomposite.
In particular, Applicant Example 4 produced through milling of 0.875 Li2O + 0.6325 LiCl + 1 ZrCl4 for 10 hours under an Ar atmosphere (Instant specification, pp. 24 ln. 14-18, pp. 24-25 Table 1) comprises in-situ grown ZrO2 having an average crystal size of 5-10 nm (pp 27, ln. 13-19). Secondary reference Dodd, directed to an analogous process of mechanochemical milling of ZrCl4 and LiOH to form a halide nanocomposite (“nanocrystalline powder”, Dodd, abstract), observes that milling a mixture of ZrCl4 + 4LiOH for any duration between at least 1 minute and 24 hours results in in-situ growth of ZrO2 crystallites having an average crystal size of 5 to 10 nm (Dodd pp. 1826, FIG. 4). Given that an apparently wide range of raw materials and milling procedures appears to result in the same in-situ growth of ZrO2 crystallites having an average crystal size of 5 to 10 nm, one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the nanocomposite of Tanaka Example 5 or in the alternative, the nanocomposite of modified Tanaka, to comprise in-situ grown ZrO2 having an average crystal size of 5-10 nm as observed by TEM analysis; see MPEP 2112 III.
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka, or modified Tanaka, discloses the halide-based nanocomposite for a solid electrolyte of a lithium-ion battery according to claim 5. While Tanaka does not explicitly disclose that the in-situ grown ZrO2 is formed in the form of a net formed in the LiaM1Xb host of Chemical Formula 3, applicant disclosure indicates that in-situ grown ZrO2 naturally forms as a net, as compared to existing ZrO2 particles which are mixed into the nanocomposite material in Applicant Comparative Example 2 and agglomerate instead of forming as a net (Instant specification, pp.29 ln. 5-17, FIGs. 3, 4).
Furthermore, Dodd evidences that mechanochemical processing to synthesize a nanocrystalline composite is known in the art to form ultrafine particles embedded within a salt matrix (Dodd pp. 1823, section “1. Introduction”), which implies a structure analogous to a net (“ultrafine particles”) formed in a LiaM1Xb host (“salt matrix”).
As such, one having ordinary skill in the art would further expect the in-situ grown ZrO2 of Tanaka’s nanocomposite or in the alternative, modified Tanaka’s nanocomposite, to form in a net of the LiaM1Xb host of Chemical Formula 3; see MPEP 2112 III.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka as applied to claim 14, further in view of NPL FutureBridge “Solid-State Batteries” (copy in 08/26/2025 Office action), hereinafter FutureBridge.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Tanaka, or modified Tanaka discloses the all-solid-state battery according to claim 14. While Tanaka discloses that a battery comprising the halide-based nanocomposite has improved operational stability and maintains high lithium-ion conductivity in environments with temperature variations (Tanaka [0029]), Tanaka does not explicitly disclose a device or electrical device comprising the all-solid-state battery according to claim 14, such as a communication device, transportation device, or energy storage device, the electrical device being an electric vehicle, hybrid electric vehicle, plug-in hybrid electric vehicle or a power storage device.
Secondary reference FutureBridge teaches applications of solid-state batteries (FutureBridge, pp. 1 section “Introduction”), noting that solid-state batteries are desirable for use in electric vehicles to improve stability at high temperatures and maintain a high ionic conductivity over a broad range of temperatures (pp. 6 section “Factors affecting the uptake […]”, see figure on pp. 5), and further have utility in communication devices (e.g., a satellite) and energy/power storage devices (see figure on pp. 4).
As such, in seeking to improve the stability and performance of (claim 16) a device such as a communication device, transportation device, an energy storage device, or (claim 17) an electrical device such as an electric vehicle or a power storage device over a broad temperature range and at high temperatures, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide Tanaka’s all-solid-state battery in the device or electrical device. Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as Tanaka discloses an improved operational stability and lithium-ion conductivity over a broad temperature range of the lithium-ion battery having the halide-based nanocomposite of claim 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendments to the specification overcome the objections in the Office action filed 08/26/2025; the objection is withdrawn.
Applicants assert that Tanaka fails to disclose an example embodiment having the claimed multi-phase components or ratios despite using similar starting materials and mechanochemical milling parameters. Applicants argue that mechanochemical synthesis exhibits high sensitivity to synthesis parameters, such as precursors, milling duration, and atmosphere, leading to different product phase compositions (Remarks filed 11/25/2025, pp. 10-11).
While this argument has been fully considered, it has not been found persuasive.
Notwithstanding the fact that Tanaka Example 5 (Tanaka [0138]) and Applicants’ Example 2 (Instant specification pp. 24-25, Table 1) use identical precursors (a molar ratio of Li2O:ZrCl4=1:1) and the same overall process of mechanochemical milling, the only apparent differences in procedure appear to be that Tanaka mills for 24 hours in a dry air atmosphere ([0111]) while Applicants mill for 10 hours in an Ar atmosphere (Instant specification pp. 24 ln. 15-19).
Applicants’ statements regarding the mechanochemical milling process only appear to allege high sensitivity in milling parameters and do not demonstrate how either of these specific differences in procedure would cause Tanaka Example 5 to have a substantially different composition from Applicant Example 2, let alone a different composition from the entire range of compositions recited in claim 1.
Consequently, the rejection of claims 1 and 4-17 under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of Tanaka is maintained on the basis of Tanaka Example 5 being inherently substantially similar if not identical to Applicants’ Example 2, and thus additionally the broader range of compositions recited in claims 1 and 4-17.
Applicant further argues that precise volumetric ratios of the components are necessary to synthesize the claimed nanocomposite, the resulting success in synthesis not being predictable solely from the combination of the starting materials due to the sensitivity of mechanochemical synthesis (Remarks pp. 11).
While this argument has been fully considered, it has not been found persuasive. From Applicant’s experimental data, the volumetric ratios of the components appears primarily dependent on the molar ratios of the precursors.
The nanocomposite composition with respect to Chemical Formula 3 (see claim 1) follows the stoichiometric ratios of the precursor materials as recited in the instant specification (inst. spec., pp. 20, ln. 1-2)
PNG
media_image1.png
103
835
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A volume ratio of each component may be calculated from the molar ratio based on the following relation:
volume = moles * molar mass / density,
where performing this calculation (see table below) based on the molar ratio of the nanocomposite composition (data shown in inst. spec. table 1) predicts a volumetric ratio of each component (see row calculated vol%) nearly identical to the experimentally observed volumetric ratio of the nanocomposite (data shown in inst. spec. table 2; see density values of components in correspondence appendix)
Applicant Experimental Example 2
Precursors
1 Li2O : 1 ZrCl4
Nanocomposite formula
LiCl
ZrO2
Li2ZrCl6
Molar ratio (table 1)
2
1
1
parts mass (calculated)
84.78
123.218
317.804
parts volume (calculated)
40.95652
22.00321
124.1422
Calculated Vol% (normalized to 100%)
21.89%
11.76%
66.35%
Vol% (table 2)
21.58%
11.43%
66.99%
In other words, the volumetric ratios of the components in the finished nanocomposite appears to be predictable result of the nanocomposite’s formula, which is itself a predictable result of the molar ratio of the precursors.
Consequently, this further supports the conclusion that Tanaka Example 5 and Applicants’ Example 2, which use identical precursors (a molar ratio of Li2O:ZrCl4=1:1) and the same overall process of mechanochemical milling are inherently substantially similar if not identical nanocomposite materials in the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102.
Applicants cite unexpected improvements to charge/discharge performance and cycle stability over Comparative Example 1, which comprises only Li2ZrCl6 (pp. 11-12), and where Li2ZrCl6 itself is superior in these qualities compared to conventional solid electrolyte Li6PS5Cl (pp. 12).
While this argument has been fully considered, it has not been found persuasive as Applicants have not provided specific evidence to overcome the finding of anticipation by Tanaka, where considerations of unexpected results are irrelevant.
Assuming arguendo that Applicants conclusively prove that the nanocomposite of Tanaka Example 5 is substantially different from both Applicants’ Example 2 and the entire compositional range of claim 1, Tanaka produces a comparative example comprising Li2ZrCl6 (from 2 LiCl : 1 ZrCL4 as a raw material, [0141]; identical to Applicants’ comparative example, see instant spec. pp. 25-26 Table 2) which has reduced ionic conductivity (Tanaka pp. 8 Table 1); as improvements to ionic conductivity are known in the art to improve charge/discharge performance and cycle stability, these beneficial results of the claimed nanocomposite relative to Li2ZrCl6 are to be expected (MPEP 716.02(c) II). Similarly, these improvements relative to conventional solid electrolyte Li6PS5Cl are expected.
Applicants cite improvements to atmospheric stability of the nanocomposite compared to existing oxide-based solid electrolytes (pp. 12).
While this argument has been fully considered, it has not been found persuasive as Applicants have not provided specific evidence to overcome the finding of anticipation by Tanaka, where considerations of unexpected results are irrelevant.
Nonetheless, although Tanaka fails to explicitly compare the nanocomposite's stability to oxide-based solid electrolytes, Tanaka notes the nanocomposite as being safer compared to sulfide electrolytes when exposed to the atmosphere (Tanaka [0030]) which would suggest some improvement to atmospheric stability of the material compared to conventional electrolytes, and evidencing expectedness of these beneficial results (MPEP 716.02(c) II).
In light of all of the above discussions, both the findings of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102 and obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Tanaka as applied to claims 1 and 4-15 are maintained.
Applicants argue that neither Tanaka nor Dodd teach or suggest the use of in-situ growth to achieve the specific particle size range and net-like morphology of ZrO2, improving nanocomposite stability (Remarks pp. 13-14).
While this argument has been fully considered, it has not been found persuasive. Tanaka uses LiO2 and ZrCl4 as raw materials for Example 5 ([0138]), and would thus necessarily use in-situ growth to form ZrO2 as compared to Applicants’ comparative example where ZrO2 particles are instead manually mixed into the nanocomposite. While Tanaka does not inherently observe a specific particle size range or net-like morphology or note improvements to stability as a result thereof, Dodd evidences that both of these structures inherently form in-situ as a result of the mechanochemical milling process under a relatively broad range of milling conditions.
As such, a skilled artisan would recognize these structures as being present in Tanaka regardless whether Tanaka observes or recognizes the effects of them, absent specific and persuasive evidence that Tanaka fails to form these particles in-situ without this crystal size or net formation. Consequently, the rejection of claims 5-6 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Tanaka evidenced by Dodd is maintained.
Appendix
A density of 2.07 g/cm3 and 5.6 g/cm3 is used for LiCl and ZrO2 respectively, these values being known in the art.
A density of 2.65 g/cm3 is used for Li2ZrCl6; this value evidenced by Ganesan et al. (Fluorine-Substituted Halide Solid Electrolytes with Enhanced Stability toward the Lithium Metal, pp. 38395 col. 1 ¶3, see copy provided with this Office action)
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 EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-8:00.
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 G Leong can be reached on (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.
/E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/24/2026