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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/12/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-10, 13-14 are cancelled.
Claims 11, 15-16 are amended.
Claims 11-19 have been considered on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the instant application differs from the cited references as follows:
Yushin fails to disclose that the solid electrolyte material is represented by formula (1) Li6-(4-x)b(Zrl-xAlx)bF6 and there is no motivation to particularly select Zr, Al, and only F as a halogen (p. 5)
The claimed range 0.2 ≤ x ≤ 0.99 (Al’s content) exhibits superior results as shown in Table 1.
In regards to argument a, the disclosure of Yushin encompasses the claimed formula ([0088]). Further, Ueno and Feinauer are now relied upon to teach the selection of Zr, Al and F.
In regards to argument b, the arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. For example, claim 11 requires that mathematical relations 0.2 ≤ x ≤ 0.99 and 0 < b ≤ 1.5 are satisfied. Table 1 of the instant specification provides only two data points for comparison of x values outside the claimed range, Examples 13 and 18. In Table 1 both x and b are being varied and the range of b values shown in Table 1 is much narrower (0.7 < b ≤ 1.3) than that claimed. Therefore, the data shown in Table 1 does not support criticality of the entire range claimed. Further, the disclosure of Yushin encompasses the claimed formula ([0088]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that a material with an overlapping composition would possess an ionic conductivity overlapping with the values shown in Table 1.
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) 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (US 20200343580 A1) hereinafter “Yushin” in view of Ueno et al. (US20220294007A1) hereinafter “Ueno” and Feinauer et al. (Unlocking the Potential of Fluoride-Based Solid Electrolytes for Solid-State Lithium Batteries, 2019) hereinafter “Feinauer”.
Regarding claim 11, Yushin teaches a solid state electrolyte-comprising Li or Li-ion battery cell where a solid electrolyte may comprise (i) Li, (ii) two, three, four or more different non-Li metals from the list of (H, B, Na, Mg, Al, K, Ca, Sc, Zn, Ga, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, Cd, In, Sn, Sb, Si, Ge, Cs, Ba, La, Ce, other lanthanoids, Hf, Ta and Bi) and (iii) one, two or more different halogens ([0089] the case where the non-Li metals are selected as at least Zr and Al and a halogen is selected as F; [0088]).
Yushin does not explicitly teach the solid electrolyte material being represented by the following composition formula (1) Li6-(4-x)b(Zrl-xAlx)bF6 ... Formula (1) where mathematical relations 0.2 ≤ x ≤ 0.99 and 0 < b ≤ 1.5 are satisfied.
However, Ueno teaches a solid electrolyte according to a first aspect contains, as a main element, a compound that contains an alkali metal element, a tetravalent metal element, and a halogen element ([0020]) wherein the solid electrolyte may be represented by the composition formula Li2+aMbZr1+cCl6+d, −1.5≤a≤1.5, 0≤b≤1.5, −0.7≤c≤0.2, and −0.2≤d≤0.2 is satisfied, and M is one or more elements selected from Al, Y, Ca, Nb, and Mg ([0026]). Ueno teaches that the tetravalent metal element contained in the halogenated compound is preferably Zr because it is low cost, low weight, and enhances the stability of a battery ([0049]). Ueno teaches that M is preferably one or more elements selected from Al, Y, Ca, Nb, and Mg ([0054]; [0142]). Ueno teaches that when part of the tetravalent metal element is substituted with an element selected from the group consisting of monovalent to trivalent elements, the number of movable ion carriers of a reduced cation content can be increased, resulting in increased ion conductivity of the solid electrolyte ([0065]).
Feinauer teaches a compound, Li3AlF6 as solid electrolyte having good ionic conductivity (abstract). Feinauer teaches that metal fluorides are electrical insulators, a highly desirable property for electrolyte applications and that Li-containing metal fluorides possess high chemical and electrochemical stability like ceramic electrolytes and excellent mechanical properties like sulfide-based electrolytes (pp.7197-7198).
Yushin teaches a variety of solid-state electrolytes composed of two non-Li metals and one halogen ([0089]). Ueno teaches a halide solid electrolyte containing Zr and Al ([0026]; [0054]; [0049]). Feinauer teaches that Li-containing metal fluorides possess high chemical and electrochemical stability like ceramic electrolytes and excellent mechanical properties like sulfide-based electrolytes (p.7197). Therefore, Zr and Al are known non-Li metals for use in halide solid electrolytes, the selection of only one halogen is known in the art, and fluoride based solid electrolytes have desirable properties (Yushin [0089]; Ueno [0026], [0054], [0049]; Feinauer p.7197).
In view of Yushin, Ueno, and Feinauer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected non-Li metals, such as Zr and Al, described in the art as well as the halogen element from known halogens (such as F).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select non-Li metals (such as Zr and Al) from art disclosed groups of non-Li metals, as well as the halogen element from known halogens (such as F) due to the desirable properties they possess (Ueno [0054], [0049]; Feinauer p.7197). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP §2144.07). Further, the selection of a balanced chemical compound containing Li, Zr, Al, and F would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of Yushin, Ueno, and Feinauer (Yushin [0089]; Ueno [0026], [0054], [0049]; Feinauer p.7197). The range of chemical formula subscripts taught by Yushin and Ueno overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 12, modified Yushin teaches the solid electrolyte material according to claim 11.
Yushin does not explicitly teach wherein a ratio of an amount of substance of Li to a sum of amounts of substance of Zr and Al is 1.12 or more and 5.07 or less.
However, the range of chemical formula subscripts taught by modified Yushin overlaps with the claimed range (Yushin [0089]; Ueno [0026]; [0142]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 15, modified Yushin teaches the solid electrolyte material according to claim 11.
Yushin does not explicitly teach wherein a mathematical relation 0.2 < x < 0.95 is satisfied.
However, the range of chemical formula subscripts taught by modified Yushin overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 16, modified Yushin teaches the solid electrolyte material according to claim 11.
Modified Yushin does not explicitly teach wherein a mathematical relation 0.7 < b < 1.3 is satisfied.
However, the range of chemical formula subscripts taught by modified Yushin overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 17, modified Yushin teaches the solid electrolyte material according to claim 16.
Modified Yushin does not explicitly teach wherein a mathematical relation 0.9 < b < 1.04 is satisfied.
However, the range of chemical formula subscripts taught by modified Yushin overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 18, modified Yushin teaches the solid-electrolyte material of claim 11. Yushin further teaches a battery comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and an electrolyte layer provided between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of the positive electrode, the negative electrode, and the electrolyte layer includes the solid electrolyte material according to claim 11 (claim 1; [0047]; [0153]-[0154]; [0052]; [0156]; abstract) .
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin (US 20200343580 A1) in view of Ueno (US20220294007A1) and Feinauer (Unlocking the Potential of Fluoride-Based Solid Electrolytes for Solid-State Lithium Batteries, 2019), as applied above, in further view of Iwamoto (US 20170309964 A1).
Regarding claim 19, modified Yushin teaches the battery according to claim 18.
Modified Yushin does not teach wherein the electrolyte layer includes a first electrolyte layer and a second electrolyte layer, the first electrolyte layer is disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, the second electrolyte layer is disposed between the first electrolyte layer and the negative electrode, and the first electrolyte layer includes the solid electrolyte material.
However, Iwamoto teaches a battery comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode and an electrolyte layer provided between the positive electrode and the negative electrode ([0005]; [0045]), wherein the electrolyte layer includes a first electrolyte layer and a second electrolyte layer, the first electrolyte layer is disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, the second electrolyte layer is disposed between the first electrolyte layer and the negative electrode ([0045]). Iwamoto teaches that a first electrolyte layer and a second layer electrolyte reduce the probability of a short circuit occurring due to pinholes generated in a solid electrolyte layer ([0063]). Iwamoto further teaches where a first solid electrolyte and second solid electrolyte can be chosen from known solid electrolyte materials (par. [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a first electrolyte layer and a second electrolyte layer as taught by Iwamoto.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the battery taught by Yushin by including a first electrolyte layer and a second electrolyte layer as taught by Iwamoto to reduce the probability of a short circuit occurring due to pinholes generated in a solid electrolyte layer ([0063]).
Further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the solid electrolyte material taught by modified Yushin in the positive electrode-side solid electrolyte layer taught by Iwamoto.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have selected the solid electrolyte material taught by modified Yushin for the electrolyte material in the positive electrode-side solid electrolyte layer taught by Iwamoto to achieve the predictable result of a solid-state battery. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP §2144.07).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Natsui et al. (WO2018100792A1) teaches a material according to the formula LixMeyAzOαFβ where Me denotes one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Mn, Co, Ni, Fe, Al, Cu, Nb, Mo, Ti, Cr, Zr, Zn, Na, K, Ca, Mg, Pt, Au, Ru, and W, and A denotes one or more elements selected from the group consisting of B, Si, and P where 1.3≤x≤2.1, 0.8≤y≤1.3, 0≤z≤0.2, 1.8≤α≤2.9, and 0.1≤β≤1.2 are satisfied (abstract; [0003]-[0006]). Reference is made to US equivalent US 20190198861 A1 for translation.
Ikeuchi et al. (WO2018092359A1) teaches a material according to the formula LixMeyOαXβ (M denotes Co, Ni, Mn, V, Fe, or Ti, X denotes at least one halogen element, and 0.2≤w≤2.5, 0.8≤x≤1.25, 1≤y≤2, and 0<z≤1 are satisfied) (abstract; [0003]-[0005]). Reference is made to US equivalent document US 20190181443 A1 for translation.
Sun et al. (US 20220216507 A1) teaches a solid electrolyte with the formula LibMaXc, ([0005]-[0009]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Matthew 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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728