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 Claims
The Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 01/07/2026, has been entered. Claims 1 and 6-11 are amended; and claims 2-5 stand as originally or previously presented. Support for the amendments is found in the original filing, and there is no new matter.
Upon consideration of said amendments and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 Final Rejection set forth in Office Action mailed 11/07/2025 has been withdrawn. Amended and new grounds of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing to the originally cited art and newly found art are set forth below as necessitated by the claim amendments and arguments.
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 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzapfel et al. (US 20120295167 A1, hereinafter Holzapfel), and in view of Visco et al. (US 20190173128 A1, hereinafter Visco).
Regarding Claims 1, 7, and 8, Holzapfel discloses the limitations regarding a method for lithium-ion conduction (Holzapfel, production of Li1.3Ti1.7Al0.3(PO4)3, [0066]) (Claim 8):
a) providing a powder with particulates of a lithium ion-conducting material (Holzapfel, lithium aluminum titanium phosphate powder, [0064]) having a conductivity of at least 10-5 S/cm (Holzapfel, in the particularly phase-pure form—Li1.3Ti1.7Al0.3(PO4)3, which has a particularly high total ion conductivity of 7 x 10-4 S/cm at 293 K, [0025]; the disclosed ion conductivity of 7 x 10-4 S/cm falls within the claimed range of at least 10-5 S/cm), wherein
particulates have a d50 particle size in a range from 0.05 µm to 10 µm (Holzapfel, the lithium aluminum titanium phosphate according to the invention preferably has a particle-size distribution of d50 < 2.1 µm, [0024]; the disclosed particle size distribution of less than 2.1 µm overlaps the claimed range of 0.05 µm to 10 µm), wherein the particulates have a particle size distribution log (d90/d10) of less than 4 (Holzapfel, the lithium aluminum titanium phosphate according to the invention preferably has a particle-size distribution of d90 < 6 µm and d10 < 1 µm, [0024]; the disclosed particle size distribution of d90 < 6 µm and d10 < 1 µm overlaps the claimed distribution of (d90/d10) of less than 4) (Claims 1, 7, and 8), and
b) inserting the lithium-ion conductor in a separator, an anode, a cathode, a primary battery and/or a secondary cell (Claim 8) (Holzapfel, a secondary lithium ion battery containing the phase-pure lithium aluminum titanium phosphate, and the lithium aluminum titanium phosphate is used as a solid-state electrolyte, [0001], Abstract).
Holzapfel is silent regarding: the powder has an inorganic carbon content (Total Inorganic Carbon Content (TIC)) of less than 0.4 wt% and an organic carbon content (Total Organic Carbon Content (TOC)) of less than 0.1 wt% (Claims 1, 7, and 8)
Visco discloses a lithium-ion conductor (Visco, lithium ion-conductive solid electrolyte, Abstract), wherein the sulfide glasses, and their precursor powder ingredients, are generally sensitive to constituents of air (e.g., water and oxygen), and so handling of the glass and its ingredients is performed in an inert environment (typically a dry noble gas such as argon), and operations such as heating (e.g., heating above the melt or above Tliq) and quenching (e.g., cooling the melt below Tg), and/or mechanical milling (e.g., high energy ball milling) may be performed in a vacuum evacuated chamber (e.g., in a vacuum sealed quartz tube in the case of melt/quench processing) or under an inert environment of a dry noble gas (Visco, [0275]).
Visco teaches that a solid electrolyte sheet is formed with both first and second principal side surfaces fully exposed to the ambient gaseous environment (inert). And by this expedient, the sheet so formed, is absent imperfections, imprints, chemical reaction products, and contaminants that would otherwise appear on or nearby its surface if the sheet were solidified in direct contact with a foreign solid body surface (Visco, [0167]).
Holzapfel and Visco are analogous to the current invention as they are directed towards the production of a lithium-ion conductor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the procedure of producing Li1.3Ti1.7Al0.3(PO4)3 of Holzapfel to be performed in an inert environment, as taught by Visco, in order to prevent imperfections, imprints, chemical reaction products, and contaminants that would otherwise appear on or nearby its surface if the lithium ion conductor were solidified in direct contact with a foreign solid body surface.
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 the powder has an inorganic carbon content (Total Inorganic Carbon Content (TIC)) of less than 0.4 wt% and an organic carbon content (Total Organic Carbon Content (TOC)) of less than 0.1 wt% (Claims 1, 7, and 8), it is submitted that such limitations are simply measurements of, and thus descriptions of, inherent compositional parameters of the recited lithium aluminum titanium phosphate powder.
Applicant discloses that the use of Li2CO3 results leaves residues of unreacted CO2 in the material, which can result in a high inorganic carbon content (see Instant Specification Page 23, Lines 10-22), organic solvent molecules may accumulate on the surface of the resultant particulates because of physical interaction, which can lead result in a high organic carbon content (see Instant Specification Page 6, Lines 6-25), comminuting steps which are operated dry, operation takes place preferably in a CO2-free atmosphere (e.g. under inert gas such as nitrogen or argon) (see Instant Specification Page 31, Lines 16-19), and it is a particular advantage of the present disclosure that by using such high temperatures of at least 900 °C, it is possible to achieve a particularly low inorganic carbon content, even if Li2CO3 is used as raw material (see Instant Specification Page 23, Lines 10-22).
Accordingly, it is reasonably interpreted that the material used and procedural conditions are critical to the recited powder that has an inorganic carbon content (Total Inorganic Carbon Content (TIC)) of less than 0.4 wt% and an organic carbon content (Total Organic Carbon Content (TOC)) of less than 0.1 wt%, such that it would fulfil the recited measurements and necessarily possess the inherent properties.
Modified Holzapfel discloses that LiOH or LiNO3 can be used as the lithium source when making the lithium aluminum titanium phosphate powder (Holzapfel, [0033]), the mixture was dry mixed, so there is no organic solvent (Holzapfel, [0069]), the procedures can be performed in an inert environment to prevent contaminants and chemical reactions from occurring with the lithium ion conductor (Visco, [0167, 0275]), the finely ground premixture was heated from 200 to 900 °C. within six hours at a heat-up rate of 2 °C per minute, and the product was then sintered at 900° C for 24 hours (Holzapfel, [0065-0069]).
It is submitted that the lithium aluminum titanium phosphate powder of modified Holzapfel does not use carbon, would not introduce carbon dioxide from the environment, and the procedure is performed at 900 °C, which would decompose any carbonate, so the total inorganic carbon content and total organic carbon content will be 0 wt%, which falls within the claimed ranges of less than 0.4 wt% and less than 0.1 wt%, respectively.
Therefore, based upon the absence of carbon, it appears reasonable that the lithium aluminum titanium phosphate powder of Holzapfel would inherently possess physical properties, e.g. TIC and TOC, such that the lithium aluminum titanium phosphate powder of Holzapfel would necessarily fulfill the recited limitations, i.e. an inorganic carbon content (Total Inorganic Carbon Content (TIC)) of less than 0.4 wt% and an organic carbon content (Total Organic Carbon Content (TOC)) of less than 0.1 wt%.
Assuming, arguendo, that such properties 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 such properties obvious over the instant powder. The skilled artisan would reasonably find that the disclosed lithium aluminum titanium phosphate powder of Holzapfel does not have carbon, so the prior art lithium aluminum titanium phosphate powder of Holzapfel would exhibit an inorganic carbon content (Total Inorganic Carbon Content (TIC)) of less than 0.4 wt% and an organic carbon content (Total Organic Carbon Content (TOC)) of less than 0.1 wt% (Claims 1, 7, and 8).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Holzapfel discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Holzapfel discloses a powder (Holzapfel, lithium aluminum titanium phosphate powder, [0064]), wherein the powder has a specific surface area of at least 0.05 m2/g (Holzapfel, the phase-pure lithium aluminum titanium phosphate according to the invention also has a relatively high BET surface area of <4.5 m2/g, [0023]; the disclosed surface area of <4.5 m2/g overlaps with the claimed surface area of 0.05 m2/g). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Holzapfel discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Holzapfel discloses a powder (Holzapfel, lithium aluminum titanium phosphate powder, [0064]). While Holzapfel does not explicitly disclose a specific water content, Holzapfel does disclose that during the production of Li1.3Ti1.7Al0.3(PO4)3, a mixture was heated 225° C in an oven and left at this temperature for two hours, and was then ground and heated from 200 to 900° C. within six hours at a heat-up rate of 2° C per minute, as otherwise crystalline foreign phases were detectable in the X-ray powder diffractogram (XRD). The product was then sintered at 900° C for 24 hours (Holzapfel, [0065-0069]). The Examiner notes that because the production of Li1.3Ti1.7Al0.3(PO4)3 takes place at temperatures significantly above 100 oC, which is the boiling point of water, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any water in the powder would have evaporated, and thus, the powder would at least overlap the claimed water content of at most 5 wt%.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Holzapfel discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Holzapfel discloses a powder (Holzapfel, lithium aluminum titanium phosphate powder, [0064]), wherein the lithium ion-conducting material comprises an oxidic material (Holzapfel, Li1.3Ti1.7Al0.3(PO4)3, [0025]; the Examiner notes that the Li1.3Ti1.7Al0.3(PO4)3 is oxidic due to the phosphate group, which contains oxygen).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Holzapfel discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Holzapfel discloses a powder (Holzapfel, lithium aluminum titanium phosphate powder, [0064]), wherein the lithium ion-conducting material comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of lithium aluminum titanium phosphate (LATP) (Holzapfel, lithium aluminum titanium phosphate powder, [0064]).
Regarding Claims 9 and 11, modified Holzapfel discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Holzapfel discloses a method for producing a powder (Holzapfel, lithium aluminum titanium phosphate powder, [0064]), the method comprising:
providing a crude product by conducting a hot operation at temperatures of at least 900°C (Holzapfel, the finely ground premixture was heated from 200 to 900 °C. within six hours at a heat-up rate of 2 °C per minute, [0069]), and
comminuting the crude product under conditions that exclude CO2 sources and/or organic carbon sources (Claim 9) (Visco, its ingredients is performed in an inert environment (typically a dry noble gas such as argon), [0275]), wherein b) comprises one or more of: b2) comminuting the crude product using a jaw crusher, a ball mills and/or a hammer mills (Claim 11) (Holzapfel, the product was finely ground in a ball mill with porcelain spheres, [0069]).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Holzapfel discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Holzapfel discloses a method (Holzapfel, production of Li1.3Ti1.7Al0.3(PO4)3, [0064]), wherein the hot operation is at least one selected from the group consisting of: (ii) reactive sintering (Holzapfel, the product was then sintered at 900 °C for 24 hours, [0069]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzapfel et al. (US 20120295167 A1, hereinafter Holzapfel), and in view of Visco et al. (US 20190173128 A1, hereinafter Visco), as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 20180131004 A1, hereinafter Yang).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Holzapfel discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Holzapfel discloses a powder (Holzapfel, lithium aluminum titanium phosphate powder, [0064]), wherein the inorganic carbon content (in wt%) is in a ratio to the Li2O content (in mol%) that is less than 80 ppm/mol% and/or the organic carbon content (in wt%) is in a ratio to the Li2O content (in mol%) that is less than 20 ppm/mol% (Holzapfel, the lithium aluminum titanium phosphate powder has a total inorganic carbon content and total inorganic carbon content of 0 wt%, as noted above; the disclosed total inorganic and organic carbon content percentage of 0%, falls within the claimed range of 80 ppm/mol% and 20 ppm/mol%, respectively). Holzapfel is silent regarding the powder comprises Li2O.
Yang discloses a lithium battery comprising of a solid electrolyte, wherein the solid electrolyte includes a combination of lithium aluminum titanium phosphate and Li2O (Yang, [0087]). Yang teaches that a solid electrolyte comprising of lithium aluminum titanium phosphate and Li2O has improved stability (Yang, [0083]).
Holzapfel and Yang are analogous to the current invention as they are all directed towards an electrochemical device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a solid electrolyte comprising of lithium aluminum titanium phosphate and Li2O of Yang in the secondary battery of Holzapfel, in order to improve the stability of the secondary battery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-9, filed 01/07/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Final Rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Holzapfel et al. (US 20120295167 A1, hereinafter Holzapfel), and in view of Visco et al. (US 20190173128 A1, hereinafter Visco).
Applicant argues that Holzapfel uses Li2CO3, which explicitly generates CO2 during processing. The absence of a solvent does not remove the CO2. Since the CO2 is still generated, it remains present because nothing in Holzapfel's process eliminates it.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Applicant discloses that high temperatures are advantageous because carbonate decomposition begins significantly beyond 900°C and then is fully operational at even higher temperatures. It is a particular advantage of the present disclosure that by using such high temperatures it is possible to achieve a particularly low inorganic carbon content, even if Li2CO3 is used as raw material (see Instant Specification Page 23, Lines 10-22). Holzapfel discloses that the finely ground premixture was heated from 200 to 900 °C within six hours at a heat-up rate of 2 °C per minute, and the product was then sintered at 900 °C for 24 hours (Holzapfel, [0065-0069]). The Examiner notes that any carbonate found in the lithium ion conductor of Holzapfel would decompose due to the heating and sintering step at 900 °C, as evidenced in the Instant Specification.
Further, Holzapfel discloses that LiOH or LiNO3 can be used as the lithium source when making the lithium aluminum titanium phosphate powder (Holzapfel, [0033]). The Examiner notes that Holzapfel provides alternatives for Li2CO3 that do not contain carbon, which would result in a product that has an inorganic carbon content (Total Inorganic Carbon Content (TIC)) of less than 0.4 wt% and an organic carbon content (Total Organic Carbon Content (TOC)) of less than 0.1 wt%, as claimed.
Applicant argues that Holzapfel does not mention TIC or TOC, does not recognize carbon contamination as a problem, does not measure carbon content, does not consider the importance of controlling carbon levels, does not disclose any carbon content values, does not apply CO2 exclusion during comminution.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that while modified Holzapfel may not be directed towards controlling carbon content values, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the method steps of producing Li1.3Ti1.7Al0.3(PO4)3 of modified Holzapfel are so similar to the method steps of the Instant Application that the Li1.3Ti1.7Al0.3(PO4)3 of modified Holzapfel would have substantially similar properties and compositional parameters of the instant product, as noted above. In addition, 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)
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 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
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752