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 preliminary amendment filed on 12/22/2022 has been acknowledged. Claims 1-30 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 30 recites the broad recitation “cooling until said liquid mass has completely solidified”, and the claim also recites “the cooling being carried out at a rate of greater than 200C/s” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim is interpreted as requiring the broader range/limitation such that the narrower range/limitation is not a required feature of the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 30 recites in lines 8-9 “a fused membrane as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 28”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10, 13, 15-16, 19-21, 23-24, 26 & 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kintaka (US 2014/0186720 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 6-10 & 29, Kintaka teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising a membrane disposed between an anode and a cathode ([0009]), wherein the membrane comprises a fused solid-state electrolyte membrane having a thickness of less than 5 mm and consisting of a polycrystalline product comprising a cubic crystal phase and a tetragonal crystal phase and less than 1% of amorphous phase and consisting, for more than 95% of its mass, of the elements Li, La, Zr, M and O where M can use Ta, Al and/or Y as a dopant, wherein the contents of said elements being defined by the formula Li7-xLa3-x-Zr2-x-MxO12 with x ranging from 0.2 to 1 (which encompasses the presently claimed range of 0.2 to 0.4); and wherein the membrane is a material obtained by melting a starting feedstock, in the form of a liquid mass, and then solidifying said liquid mass, the material being obtained immediately after solidification ([0025]-[0027], [0068], [0081], [0085]-[0099]; Table 1).
Regarding claims 2-4, Kintaka teaches the total amount by mass of cubic LLZO and tetragonal phases being greater than 99%, in percentages by mass based on the mass of the crystalline phases ([0086]-[0089]).
Regarding claim 5, Kintaka teaches the cubic LLZO phase representing more than 35% of all the cubic LLZO and tetragonal LLZO phases together, in percentages by mass ([0085]-[0089]; Table 1).
Regarding claim 13, Kintaka teaches M comprising the element Y, wherein the atomic index of Y is greater than 0.005 and less than 0.3 and the sum of the atomic indices of M other than Y (i.e such as Al) is less than 0.3 ([0012]-[0013] & [0018]-[0019]; Table 1: Examples 13-14).
Regarding claims 15-16, Kintaka teaches M comprising the element Ce, wherein an atomic index of Ce can range from 0 to 2 ([0012]-[0013], [0019] & [0049]) which encompasses the presently claimed ranges of less than 0.3 (claim 15) and less than 0.2 (claim 16).
Regarding claims 19-20, Kintaka teaches M comprising the element Al, wherein an atomic index of Al ranges from 0.1 to 1 with the sum of the atomic indices of elements M other than Al being less than 0.1 ([0012]-[0013] & [0018]-[0019]; Table 1: Example 2) which reads on the presently claimed ranges in claims 19 and 20.
Regarding claims 21 & 23, Kintaka teaches M comprising the element Ta, wherein an atomic index of Ta ranges from greater than 0.05 to less than 0.9 with the sum of the atomic indices of elements M other than Ta being less than 0.3 ([0012]-[0013], [0018] & [0024]; Table 1: Example 2).
Regarding claim 24, Kintaka teaches M comprising the elements Sr and/or Ba and/or Ca and/or Mg, wherein the sum of the atomic indices of Sr and/or Ba and/or Ca and/or Mg is greater than 0.005 and the sum of the atomic indices of elements M other than Sr and/or Ba and/or Ca and/or Mg is less than 0.3 ([0012]-[0013], [0018] & [0020]; Table 1: Example 4).
Regarding claim 26, Kintaka teaches M comprising the elements Na and/or K, wherein the sum of the atomic indices of Na and/or K is greater than 0.005 and the sum of the atomic indices of elements M other than Na and/or K is less than 0.3 ([0012]-[0013], [0015] & [0021]; 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.
Claims 14, 22, 25 & 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kintaka (US 2014/0186720 A1).
Regarding claims 14, 22, 25 & 27, Kintaka teaches the membrane of claim 13, 21, 24 & 26, respectively, but is silent as to the sum of atomic indices of elements M other than Y (with respect to claim 14), other than Ta and/or Nb and/or V (with respect to claim 22), other than Sr and/or Ba and/or Ca and/or Mg (with respect to claim 25) and other than Na and/or K (with respect to claim 27) being less than 0.1. However, Kintaka teaches the atomic index of Al (i.e element other than the ones recited in respective claims 14, 22, 25 & 27) being as little as 0.1 ([0018]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kintaka (US 2014/0186720 A1) in view of Badding (US 2014/0065513 A1).
Regarding claims 11-12, Kintaka teaches the membrane of claim 1 but is silent as to the membrane having a microstructure composed for more than 90% by number of grains having an elongation factor of greater than 2.5, referred to as “elongated grains” (claim 11) and wherein said elongated grain are parallel to one another (claim 12). Badding teaches a membrane comprising a solid electrolyte such as LLZO, wherein the membrane has a microstructure preferably having substantially only anisotropic grains which are parallel to one another (Fig. 1C; [0018]-[0022]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to provide a microstructure preferably having substantially only anisotropic grains which are parallel to one another in view of enhancing the ionic conductivity as taught by Badding ([0018]). While Badding does not explicitly teach elongated grains having an elongation factor of greater than 2.5, it is noted that “a size dimension of the path-engineered particle 20 in the preferred conductivity direction H is smaller than a size dimension of the path-engineered particle 20 in the reduced conductivity direction L. The difference in the respective size dimensions of the path-engineered particle 20 can be used to encourage self-alignment of the path engineered particles in the aforementioned orientation because, in many of the contemplated fabrication processes described herein a particle will naturally tend to settle in an orientation that is strongly influenced by the relative size dimensions of the particle in different directions” ([0019]). Accordingly, a larger difference in the dimensions (i.e length and thickness) of the grains, which results in a larger elongation factor, would encourage self-alignment of the grains in the preferred orientation to optimize the ionic conductivity. [A]fter KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See MPEP 2144.05 II (B).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kintaka (US 2014/0186720 A1) in view of Gao (CN 111326787 A, as cited in the IDS on 12/22/2022).
Regarding claims 17-18, Kintaka teaches the membrane of claim 1 but is silent as to M comprising the elements Ti and/or Fe and the sum of the atomic indices of Ti and Fe is less than 0.8 (claim 17) and less than 0.6 (claim 18). Gao teaches a solid electrolyte membrane comprising an Al-doped LLZO represented by Li6.7Al0.1La3Zr1.75Ti0.25O12 (Pages 2-3; Example 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use Ti with an atomic index of 0.25 for the dopant M in Kintaka’s solid electrolyte as a suitable dopant for an aluminum doped-LLZO solid electrolyte while providing high ionic conductivity and electronic conductivity as taught by Gao (Page 7). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kintaka (US 2014/0186720 A1) in view of Chao (US 2019/0260073 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Kintaka teaches the membrane of claim 1 but is silent as to at least one of the major surfaces having a roughness Ra of less than 500 nm. Chao teaches a solid electrolyte membrane comprising LLZO and having a surface roughness Ra of 50 nm to 5 microns ([0074]-[0075] & [0112]-[0116]) which overlaps with the presently claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to set a surface roughness of at least one the major surfaces of Kintaka’s membrane to less than 500 nm in view of improving the translucence of the solid electrolyte membrane as taught by Chao ([0008] & [0112]).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kataoka (US 2017/0324079 A1) in view of Schumacher (US 2021/0343996 A1), Raguenet (“The mixed glass former effect in twin-roller quenched lithium borophosphate glasses”) and Chao (US 2019/0260073 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Kataoka teaches a method for manufacturing a membrane as claimed in claim 1, the method comprising: a) mixing starting materials so as to form a starting feedstock suitable for obtaining, on conclusion of step (c), a said polycrystalline product; b) melting the starting feedstock until a liquid mass is obtained; and c) cooling until said liquid mass has completely solidified ([0026]-[0032]) but is silent as to d) polishing the polycrystalline product obtained on conclusion of step c) so as to obtain a fused membrane, and wherein step c) comprises: c1) casting the liquid mass, in the form of a jet, between two rollers; and c2) solidifying by cooling the cast liquid mass in contact with the rollers until an at least partially solidified block of polycrystalline product is obtained. Schumacher teaches a method of manufacturing a solid electrolyte membrane, the method comprising cooling a melt of a starting feedstock by casting the melt (i.e liquid mass) in the form of a jet, with a rolling machine and solidifying by cooling the cast melt in contact with the rolling machine until an at least partially solidified block is obtained ([0019]-[0022, [0029], [0034]-[0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to cool Kataoka’s melt via the claimed steps c1) and c2) as a suitable means for cooling a liquid mass formed by melting a starting feedstock to produce a solid electrolyte membrane as taught by Schumacher. “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”. See MPEP 2144.07 I. While Schumacher does not explicitly teach casting the liquid mass between two rollers, one of ordinary skill in the art readily understands that rolling to cool a liquid mass can be performed by casting the liquid mass between two rollers as evidenced by Raguenet (2. Experimental). Chao teaches a method of manufacturing a solid electrolyte membrane, the method comprising polishing a cooled liquid mass obtained by melting a starting feedstock ([0074] & [0288]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to polish Kataoka’s polycrystalline product, following step c), in order to obtain a desired surface roughness for the membrane as taught by Chao ([0074]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BARBARA GILLIAM can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727