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 .
Summary
Applicant’s remarks and claim amendments submitted March 20, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 4, 6, 7, 8-10, 12, 20, and 23-35 are cancelled, claims 1, 5, 11, 14, and 16-19 are amended and claim 22 is withdrawn from consideration, resulting in claims 1-3, 5, 11, 13-19, 21, and 36-39 pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It is suggested that line 2 be amended to recite “providing a slurry precursor including a chalcogenide compound,
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 11, 13-19, 21, and 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 14, claim 1 recites “heating the green tape at a temperature in a range of 500°C to 1350°C for a time less than 45 min, wherein the heating causes the binder to burn off and sinter the chalcogenide compound to form the sintered composition” and claim 14 recites “heating the green tape at a temperature in a range of 500°C to 1350°C for a time less than 45 min, wherein the heating causes the binder to burn off and sinter the at least one first metal carbonate compound and at least one second metal carbonate compound to form the sintered composition”, and claim 14 recites “pyrolyzing organics in the dried sheet configuration”.
The instant disclosure does not provide support for “the heating” causing the binder to burn off while simultaneously sintering, where the temperature can span the range of 500°C to 1350°C. Additionally the instant disclosure does not provide support for two steps that remove the binder (claim 1 “binder to burn off” and claim 11 “further comprising pyrolyzing organics”).
The instant specification discloses:
removal of the binder at a temperature of 175°C to 350°C in one step, followed by sintering 500°C to 1350°C [62]
removal of the binder at 300°C, followed by sintering at 1100°C [79]
removal of the binder and sintering in a single step, where the maximum temperature is 1100°C [80]
binder removal in a burn-out zone, followed by sintering [97], where the binder burn-out zone pyrolyzes organic components [98]
Claims 2-3, 5, 11, 13, 36, 37, 38 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore, for the reasons outlined with respect to claim 1, these claims also contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C 112, the inventor(s) at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 15-19, 21, and 39 are dependent on claim 14 and therefore, for the reasons outlined with respect to claim 14, these claims also contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C 112, the inventor(s) at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 13, 17-19, 21, 36, and 39 are 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.
Claims 13, 17, 21, and 36 recite the limitation "the sintering”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that applicant intends for “the sintering” to refer to “the heating”, as recited in amended claim 1, and the claim will be interpreted as such, pending clarification from applicant.
Claims 18-19 and 39 are indefinite as they depend from an indefinite base and fail to cure the deficiencies of said claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3 and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiffmann (Schiffmann, N. et al. Development and characterization of half cells based on thin solid state ionic conductors for Li ion batteries. Solid State Ionics. 333, 66-71 (2019)) in view of Liu (Liu, P.S. and Chen, G.F. Making Porous Materials. Porous Materials Processing and Applications. Chapter 2, 21-112, ISBN: 978-0-12-407788-1. 2014) and Sakamoto (US 2017/0179521 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, Schiffmann teaches a method for forming a sintered composition comprising:
Providing a slurry precursor including a chalcogenide compound (LTO, Li4Ti5O12 = lithium titanate), a binder (polyvinylbutyral), solvent (ethanol), a dispersant (acrylic resin), and a plasticizer (diisononyl phthalate) (Schiffmann pg. 67 left column)
tape casting the slurry precursor to form a green tape (tape casting, preparation of green sheets, Schiffmann pg. 67 left column)
heating the green tape at a temperature in a range of 900°C to 1100°C (range within the claimed range of 500°C to 1350°C) for 60 min (1 hr), thus causing the binder to burn off and sinter the chalcogenide compound to form the sintered composition (Schiffmann pg. 67 left column).
Schiffmann does not teach the sintering conducted for less than 45 min.
Liu teaches that sintering time is chosen according to temperature, composition particle size, and desired porosity and pore shape. Liu further teaches that the sintering time can determined by experimentation, where shorter times are more desirable in order to “reduce the requirements and increase the productivity of the sintering facility” (Liu pg. 43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the sintering time in the method of Schiffmann, including times less than 45 min, in order to obtain a method capable of fabricating a sintered product with desired porosity and pore shape.
Schiffmann further teaches the tape casting comprising forming the slurry precursor to a sheet configuration having a thickness within a range of 5 µm to 100 µm (LTO, 19.98 µm, Schiffmann Table 1) and drying the sheet configuration (“after drying at 70°C for 60 s”, Schiffmann pg. 67 left column).
Schiffmann is silent to the wt% of the binder, solvent, dispersant, and plasticizer in the slurry precursor.
Sakamoto teaches a method for forming a sintered composition for use as an anode (Sakamoto Table 6), wherein the slurry precursor comprises lithium titanate (lithium titanium oxide, Sakamoto Table 6), as used in the slurry precursor of Schiffmann, at a wt% of 47.4 wt%, 3.7 wt% binder, 0.5 wt% dispersant, 1.1 wt% plasticizer, and 47.3 wt% solvent (Sakamoto Table 6).
Since both Schiffmann and Sakamoto teach anodes formed using a method comprising tape casting and subsequent sintering, wherein the slurry precursor comprises lithium titanate, a binder, a plasticizer, a dispersant, and solvent, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the wt% values taught by Sakamoto in the method of Schiffmann to achieve the predictable result of a slurry precursor suitable for tape casting and forming an anode.
Schiffmann teaches that, after the drying step, “all the solvent evaporates” (Schiffmann pg. 67 left column). Therefore, after drying, the combination of the binder, solvent, dispersant, and plasticizer would be approximately 10 wt% ( 3.7 + 0.5 + 1.1 / (47.4 + 3.7 + 0.5 + 1.1) = 10 wt%).
Regarding claim 3, Schiffmann in view of Liu and Sakamoto teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Schiffmann teaches the sintered composition being used as an anode (Schiffmann pg. 70 right column). Schiffmann is silent to the wt% of the chalcogenide, binder, solvent, dispersant, and plasticizer in the total slurry precursor.
Sakamoto teaches a method for forming a sintered composition, wherein the sintered composition can be used as an anode, comprising providing a slurry precursor (slurry for casting anode tape) including 35-65 wt% of a chalcogenide compound (lithium host material), 1-5 wt% of a binder, 10-55 wt% of a solvent, 0.1-5 wt% of a dispersant, and 1-30 wt% of a plasticizer (Sakamoto Table 3), tape casting the slurry precursor to form a green tape, and sintering the green tape (Sakamoto [43]).
Since Schiffmann in silent to the wt% of the chalcogenide in the total slurry precursor and Schiffmann and Sakamoto both teach methods for forming a sintered composition for use as an anode comprising providing a slurry precursor including a chalcogenide, a binder, a solvent, a dispersant, and a plasticizer, tape casting, and sintering, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the chalcogenide compound be within 35-65 wt% of the total slurry precursor, as taught by Sakamoto, in order to achieve the predictable result of a method capable of forming a sintered composition suitable for use as an anode.
The wt% range of Sakamoto substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 3. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Sakamoto, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 36, Schiffmann in view of Liu and Sakamoto teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Schiffmann further teaches the green tape being 19.98 µm before sintering (LTO Table 1, 50 µm gap height). Schiffmann does not expressly teach an embodiment wherein this green tape is sintered and is silent to the thickness this green tape would be after sintering. However, Schiffmann teaches that the green tapes undergo shrinking as a result of the sintering process (Schiffmann Table 2). Therefore, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the green tape of Schiffmann having a thickness of 19.98 µm before sintering would have a thickness within the claimed range of 2 µm to 100 µm after sintering.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the thickness be within the claimed range after sintering since the shrinkage in Table 2 of Schiffmann is at most approximately 13% for LTO green tape films, which would result in the 19.98 µm film having a value within the claimed range. Further, an ordinary artisan would be motivated to minimize or tune the shrinkage in order to prevent unwanted cracks in the film (Schiffmann pg. 69 left column) and the final thickness is predictable based on the green tape thickness before sintering.
Regarding claim 37, Schiffmann in view of Liu and Sakamoto teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Schiffmann further teaches the sintered composition having an open porosity and infiltrating the open porosity with an additional phase that enhances lithium conductivity of the sintered composition (“open porosity of the anode offers void for additives that could provide the necessary electronic conductivity and ionic conductivity”, Schiffmann pg. 70 right column). Schiffmann does not explicitly teach an embodiment wherein the pores are infiltrated with additional phase. However, since Schiffmann teaches that it is desirable to add additives to the pores to provide ionic conductivity, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to infiltrate the open porosity with an additional phase that enhances lithium conductivity in the method of forming a sintered composition taught by Schiffmann in order to achieve the predictable result of a method capable of producing a sintered composition with sufficient lithium conductivity.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiffmann in view of Liu and Sakamoto, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Doeff (Doeff, M.M. Titanate Anodes for Sodium Ion Batteries. Journal of Inorganic and Organometallic Polymer and Materials. 24, 5-14. (2014)).
Regarding claim 5, Schiffmann in view of Liu and Sakamoto teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Schiffmann does not teach the chalcogenide comprising one of the compounds recited in instant claim 5. The chalcogenide used in Schiffmann, as noted above, is lithium titanate.
Doeff teaches that it is known and suitable to use sodium titanate in anodes for sodium ion batteries (Doeff abstract, Experimental pg. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the lithium titanate of Schiffmann for sodium titanate (Na2Ti3O7) in order to obtain a method capable of fabricating a sintered composition suitable for use in a sodium ion battery.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiffmann in view of Liu and Sakamoto, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Badding (EP 3511137 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Schiffmann in view of Liu and Sakamoto teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Schiffmann does not teach further pyrolyzing organics in the dried sheet at a temperature in a range of 175°C to 350°C.
Badding teaches a method of fabricating a sintered composition comprising pyrolyzing organics (Badding [65-69]) at a temperature of at least 200 °C and/or below a sintering temperature of the material (Badding [69]). Badding teaches that this pyrolyzing step removes the binder and that having “a station dedicated to binder removal with its own controllable heat source, independent of heaters within the sintering furnace, allows for greater control of the binder removal process” (Badding [64]).
Since Badding and Schiffmann both teach green tape precursor slurries comprising binder and Badding teaches that it is known and suitable to remove the binder using a pyrolysis step, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the step of pyrolyzing organics in the dried sheet to the method of Schiffmann in order to obtain a method of achieve a controlled removal of binders within the green tape.
The temperature range of Badding substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 11. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Badding, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 13, Schiffmann in view of Liu and Sakamoto teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Schiffmann does not teach the sintering comprising continually feeding the green tape through a sintering chamber at a predetermined rate.
Badding teaches a method of fabricating a sintered composition, wherein a green tape is formed and subjected to a binder burnout station (pyrolysis) and a sintering station (Badding [1], [3-5]). Badding teaches continually feeding the green tape through a sintering chamber at a predetermined rate measured in in/min (Badding [5]). Badding further teaches that this allows of the sintering composition to be “continuously manufactured in long lengths” (Badding [149]).
Since Badding teaches that it is known and suitable to sinter a green tape by continually feeding the green tape through a sintering chamber at a predetermined rate, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Schiffmann to have the sintering step comprise continually feeding the green tape through a sintering chamber at a predetermined rate measured in in/min in order to obtain the predictable result of a method capable of continuously manufacturing the sintered composition in long lengths.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiffmann in view of Liu and Sakamoto, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Matsuoka (US 2014/0255796 A1).
Regarding claim 38, Schiffmann in view of Liu and Sakamoto teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Schiffmann teaches that the sintered composition has a porosity and is an anode comprising lithium titanate (Schiffmann pg. 70 right column, open porosity, LTO). However, Schiffmann is silent to what the porosity value is.
Matsuoka teaches an anode (negative electrode, Maksuoka [127) and that lithium titanate is a suitable active material (Matsuoka [138]). Matsuoka teaches that the porosity of the anode is preferably 20 to 45% in order to improve “volumetric energy density while maintaining a balance with rate performance” (Matsuoka [146]).
Since Schiffmann is silent to the porosity, Matsuoka teaches that a porosity of 20 to 45% is suitable, and Schiffmann and Matsuoka both teach anodes having a porosity and that lithium titanate is a suitable anode active material, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate a sintered composition having a porosity within the range taught by Matsuoka using the method of Schiffmann in order to improve “volumetric energy density while maintaining a balance with rate performance”.
The porosity range of Matsuoka substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 38. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Matsuoka, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Claims 14-19, 21, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto in view of Schiffmann, Terashima (US 6649307 B2), Allie (US 2020/0036000 A1), and Liu.
Regarding claims 14-16, Sakamoto teaches a method for forming a sintered composition comprising providing a slurry precursor including a lithium host material (Sakamoto [32]), tape casting the slurry precursor to form a green tape (Sakamoto [41-43]), and sintering the green tape (Sakamoto [43]). Sakamoto further teaches that lithium manganese oxide (Sakamoto [32]) is a suitable lithium host material and that the sintering temperature is in the range of 600°C to 1000°C (Sakamoto [43]), thus the heating causes the binder to burn off and sinter to form the sintered composition.
Sakamoto teaches the slurry precursor comprising a compound comprising lithium manganese oxide at a wt% of 53.0 wt%, 4.1 wt% binder, 0.6 wt% dispersant, 1.2 wt% plasticizer, and 41.1 wt% solvent (Sakamoto Table 5).
Schiffmann teaches that it is known and suitable to dry tape casted films before sintering and that after the drying step, “all the solvent evaporates” (Schiffmann pg. 67 left column). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a drying step before sintering in the method of Sakamoto and, after drying, the combination of the binder, solvent, dispersant, and plasticizer would be approximately 10 wt% ( 4.1 + 0.6 + 1.2 / (53.0 + 4.1 + 0.6 + 1.2) = 10 wt%).
Sakamoto does not teach the slurry precursor including a first metal carbonate compound and a second metal carbonate compound.
Terashima teaches that lithium manganese oxide can be formed by mixing a first metal carbonate compound (lithium carbonate) and a second metal carbonate compound (manganese carbonate) and sintering at 800°C (Terashima [30]).
Since Sakamoto teaches that lithium manganese oxide is a suitable lithium host material and that the sintering temperature is within the range of 600°C to 1100°C and Terashima teaches that lithium manganese oxide can be synthesized by mixing and sintering lithium carbonate and manganese carbonate at 800°C, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sakamoto to include lithium carbonate and manganese carbonate in the slurry precursor instead of the lithium manganese oxide and sinter at a temperature of 800°C, as taught by Terashima, in order to achieve the predictable result of a method that is capable of fabricating a sintered composition comprising lithium manganese oxide.
Sakamoto is silent to the sintering time.
Allie teaches a method for forming a sintered composition (Allie Example 4c [111-112]) comprising providing a slurry precursor (mixture, Allie [111]) including a chalcogenide compound (NCM, Allie [111]), a solvent (ethanol and xylene solvents, Allie [111]), and a binder (polymer binder PVB, Allie [111]), tape casting the slurry precursor to form a green tape (casting in the form of green tape, [112]), and sintering the green tape at a temperature of 700°C for 30 mins (Allie [112]).
Liu teaches that sintering time is chosen according to temperature, composition particle size, and desired porosity and pore shape. Liu further teaches that the sintering time can determined by experimentation, where shorter times are more desirable in order to “reduce the requirements and increase the productivity of the sintering facility” (Liu pg. 43).
Since Allie teaches that a sintering time of 30 min is suitable and Liu teaches that the sintering time is chosen according to desired porosity and pore shape and that shorter times are desirable, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the sintering time in the method of Sakamoto, including times less than 45 min, in order to obtain a method capable of fabricating a sintered product with desired porosity and pore shape.
Regarding claim 17, Sakamoto in view of Schiffmann, Terashima, Allie, and Liu teaches all features of claim 14, as described above. The modified method of Sakamoto includes the sintering comprising reacting the first and second metal carbonate compound to form a chalcogenide compound (lithium manganese oxide), as described above for claim 14.
Regarding claim 18, Sakamoto in view of Schiffmann, Terashima, Allie, and Liu teaches all features of claims 14 and 17, as described above. The modified method of Sakamoto results in the formation of lithium manganite spinel (lithium manganese oxide), as described above for claim 14.
Regarding claim 19, Sakamoto in view of Schiffmann, Terashima, Allie, and Liu teaches all features of claims 14 and 17, as described above. Sakamoto further teaches the chalcogenide being 53.0 wt% of the total weight of the slurry precursor (Sakamoto Table 5).
Sakamoto is silent to the wt% of the chalcogenide compound relative to the total weight of the sintered composition.
Sakamoto teaches an embodiment wherein the slurry precursor comprises 53.0 wt% chalcogenide (lithium manganese oxide), 4.1 wt% binder, 0.6 wt% dispersant, 1.2 wt% plasticizer, and 41.1 wt% solvent (Sakamoto Table 5). Sakamoto teaches that the slurry is simultaneously dried and sintered (“the green tape can be dried and sintered”, Sakamoto [43]). The ordinary artisan would recognize that drying would remove solvent. Sakamoto teaches that the resulting cathode can be used in solid-state batteries (Sakamoto [124-125]).
In Table 5 of Sakamoto, the starting wt% of chalcogenide is 53.0 wt% before removal of solvent; therefore, after drying, the ordinary artisan would recognize that an amount of the solvent is removed. Any amount of solvent removal would result in the wt% of chalcogenide in the sintered composition being greater than 53 wt%. For example, in the case that all solvent is removed during the drying and sintering step, the resulting wt% of chalcogenide in the cathode tape would be 90 wt% (calculation shown below). Therefore, the chalcogenide compound being at least 50 wt% of the total weight of the sintered composition, wherein the sintered composition is the cathode tape of Sakamoto Example 5 after sintering, would obviously flow from the method of Sakamoto.
8.1
g
8.1
+
0.63
+
0.09
+
0.18
g
=
0.9
x
100
=
90
w
t
%
Since Sakamoto teaches that having a chalcogenide wt% of greater than 53 wt% is suitable for cathodes used in solid-state batteries, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose first and second metal carbonate compound amounts in the slurry precursor that result in the chalcogenide having a wt% greater than 53 wt% of the total weight of the sintered composition, which is within the claimed range of at least 50 wt% of the total weight of the sintered composition, in order to achieve the predictable result of a cathode suitable for use in a solid-state battery.
Regarding claims 21 and 39, Sakamoto in view of Schiffmann, Terashima, Allie, and Li teaches all features of claim 14, as described above. Sakamoto teaches that the thickness of the green tape is 10 to 100 µm (Sakamoto [42]).
Sakamoto is silent to the thickness of the sintered composition immediately after sintering.
Schiffmann teaches that green tapes undergo shrinking as a result of a sintering process (Schiffmann Table 2). Therefore, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the green tape of Sakamoto having a thickness of 10-100 µm before sintering would have a thickness within the claimed ranges of 2 µm to 100 µm and 30 µm to 60 µm after sintering.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the thickness be within the claimed range after sintering since Schiffmann teaches the shrinkage being at most approximately 34% (Schiffmann Table 2), thus resulting in the film having a value within the claimed range after sintering. Further, an ordinary artisan would be motivated to minimize or tune the shrinkage in the method of Sakamoto in order to prevent unwanted cracks in the film (Schiffmann pg. 69 left column) and the final thickness is predictable based on the green tape thickness before sintering.
Response to Arguments
Response – Specification Objections
Upon further consideration, the objection to the specification due to the abstract of the disclosure not commencing on a separate sheet is withdrawn. The MPEP states “The requirement of 37 CFR 1.52(b) that the abstract "commence on a separate physical sheet or electronic page" does not apply to the copy of the published international application communicated to the designated Offices by the International Bureau under PCT Article 20. Accordingly, it is improper for the examiner of the U.S. national stage application to require the applicant to provide an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if the abstract does not appear on a separate sheet in the publication of the international application”. See MPEP 1893.03(e)(I).
Response – Drawings Objections
The objection to the drawings is overcome by applicant’s amendments to Figure 2 in the response received March 30, 2026. The objection to the drawings is withdrawn.
Response – Claim Objections
The objections to claims 1, 5, 7, 11, and 14 due to informalities are overcome by Applicant’s amendments to the claims in the response received on March 30, 2026. These objections to claims 1, 5, 7, 11, and 14 are withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 11 and 16-19 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 are overcome by Applicant’s amendments to the claims in the response received March 30, 2026. These rejections of claims 11 and 16-19 are withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 102 and 103
The rejections of claims 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fu (Fu, Y. et al. Fabrication of a high performance film of CaO B2O3 SiO2 glass ceramic via surface modification with titanate coupling agent. Journal of Alloys and Compounds. 815, 152387. Available online September 25, 2019) are overcome by Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response received on March 30, 2026. These rejections of claims 1 and 12 are withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu in view of Badding (EP 3511137 A1) is overcome by Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response received on March 30, 2026. This rejection of claim 13 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed March 30, 2026 with respect to claim 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s additional arguments filed March 30, 2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1:
On page 11 of the response, Applicant appears to allege that Schiffmann does not teach the wt% limitation of claim 1 and Liu is silent to chalcogenide compounds, tape casting, and the wt% in the dried sheet configuration.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
On page 11 of the response, Applicant states that “as noted above, additional heating time would be required to go from at least 500°C to the sintering temperature of Schiffmann and back again”.
It is unclear what part of the response is being referenced by “as noted above” and what is meant by the temperature needing “to go from at least 500°C to the sintering temperature of Schiffmann and back again”. Instant claim 1 requires a heating step at a temperature in a range of 500°C to 1350°C and Schiffmann teaches sintering at a temperature within the range of 900°C to 1100°C. This range disclosed by Schiffmann is within the range of claim 1.
On page 12 of the response, Applicant appears to allege that Liu is silent to particular sintering times.
This argument is not persuasive. Liu teaches that sintering time is chosen according to temperature, composition particle size, and desired porosity and pore shape. Liu further teaches that the sintering time can determined by experimentation, where shorter times are more desirable in order to “reduce the requirements and increase the productivity of the sintering facility” (Liu pg. 43). Thus, Liu motivates optimizing the sintering time to be short, as described above.
On page 12 of the response, Applicant states: “there are problems not recognized in Schiffmann and/or Liu (that are solved by the present Application) that would prevent a person having ordinary skill in the art from being able to sinter the tape in a heating process as short as required by claim 1” and that the invention of claim 1 provides flammability control.
In response to applicant's argument that the claimed invention proves flammability control, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Regarding claims 3 and 7:
On page 13 of the response, Applicant appears to allege that Sakamoto is silent to how long sintering takes places and drying cast layers before sintering and that there is no evidence that the compositions of Sakamoto can be fired at the conditions required by claim 1 and that “there is no indication” that Example 1 of Sakamoto is a sintered composition.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Sakamoto discloses that the layers formed using their compositions are sintered (Sakamoto [85], [88], claim 19).
Schiffmann is silent to the wt% of the chalcogenide, binder, solvent, dispersant, and plasticizer in the total slurry precursor and Sakamoto is relied upon to motivate suitable wt% of components in slurries used to make sintered compositions. It is noted that Sakamoto discloses a sintering temperature range of 600°C to 1100°C, which overlaps the range disclosed by Schiffmann (900°C to 1100°C), as described above.
On page 14 of the response, Applicant appear to allege that, since Sakamoto teaches sequentially casting multiple layers, a person of ordinary skill in the art would use multilayer casting in the method of Schiffmann and that “it is unclear if all the solvent could be driven form the combined multilayer laminate before sintering”.
These arguments are not persuasive. In the combination of Schiffmann in view of Sakamoto, as described above, Sakamoto is used to motivate wt% values for components of slurries used to form sintered compositions since Schiffmann is silent to these values, and the modified method of Schifmann does not bodily incorporate all of the method steps of Sakamoto.
On page 14 of the response, Applicant allege that “the Office has not provided any reason that a person of ordinary skill in the art would completely abandon compositional details taught in Schiffmann and/or Liu in favor of that in Sakamoto” and that, since Sakamoto teaches that the dispersant be a source of lithium ions and that a sintering aid that is a source of borate ions be added, that “any hypothetical modification of Schiffmann in view of Liu using Sakamoto would likely add these components”.
These arguments are not persuasive. Schiffmann is silent to the wt% of the binder, solvent, dispersant, and plasticizer in the slurry precursor, thus the combination does not “completely abandon compositional details” since Schiffmann is silent to these “compositional details”. Additionally, Sakamoto is solely relied upon to motivate wt% values for the components taught in Schiffmann, as described above.
On pages 14-15 of the response, Applicant states “none of Schiffmann, Liu, and/or Sakamoto identify the claimed relationship as a result-effective variable”, “Schiffmann, Liu, and Sakamoto have no disclosure of the relationship between the variable and the result in the prior art”, and “therefore, the Office’s alleged prima facie case of obviousness has been rebutted since Applicant has shown that the relevant result-effective variable is not identified any of Schiffmann, Liu, and Sakamoto”.
These arguments are not persuasive. It is unclear what the “claimed relationship” is, and it does not appear that the arguments presented in the response provide any guidance regarding what the variable, result, or relationship are.
It is noted that the phrase “result-effective variable” is absent from the Non-Final Office Action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yura (US 2019/0363357 A1): appears to disclose a method for forming a sintered composition comprising providing a slurry containing a chalcogenide, binder, plasticizer, solvent, and dispersant, forming a green sheet, and sintering (Yura [66-68]).
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 JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/J.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights