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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed 10/20/2025 have been entered. They do overcome the rejection as previously set forth in non-final office action filed 07/24/2025. New grounds of rejection have been presented below.
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 1 and 3 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20220216507-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Sun’, as evidenced by ‘Progress and perspectives on halide lithium conductors for all-solid-state lithium batteries’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Li’
Regarding Claim 1,
Sun teaches a solid electrolyte material comprising:Li;M1;M2; and X, wherein the M1 is at least one element selected from the group consisting of a group 2 element and a group 12 element, the M2 is at least three elements selected from the group consisting of a rare-earth element and a group 13 element (Sun, “Li3Y1-d Ind Cl6, (glass-ceramic phase); wherein, 0≤d≤1; further, d is selected from 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9 or 1.0.”, see [0011]) the X is at least one selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br (Sun, ” X is one or more selected from F, Cl, Br and I; 0.2≤b≤6; 0.1≤a≤3; and 1≤c≤9.”, see [0006]) and the solid electrolyte material has a crystalline phase (Sun, “Further, the lithium secondary battery additive of the present invention may be in a form of a glass phase, a glass-ceramic phase or a crystalline phase.”, see [0012])
Li teaches that chloride-based ternary halides have a trigonal phase (Li, “In the chloride-based ternary halides of Li3MCl6, there are mainly three kinds of structures. The first one is the trigonal (P[3 with combining macron]m1) structure, including Li3MCl6 (M = Y, Tb–Tm)”, see Section 2.1).Therefore it would have been an inherent feature of the Li3M--phase to have the trigonal structure (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present)
Regarding Claim 3,
Sun teaches the solid electrolyte material according to claim 1, wherein the M1 is at least one selected from the group consisting of Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, and Zn ,the M2 is Y, Gd, and Sm, and the X is at least one selected from the group consisting of Cl and Br (Sun, “Li3Y1-d Ind Cl6, (glass-ceramic phase); wherein, 0≤d≤1; further, d is selected from 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9 or 1.0.”, see [0011]) the X is at least one selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br (Sun, ” X is one or more selected from F, Cl, Br and I; 0.2≤b≤6; 0.1≤a≤3; and 1≤c≤9.”, see [0006])
Regarding Claim 9,
Sun teaches solid electrolyte material according to claim 3, wherein a value resulting from dividing a weighted average of ionic radii of Y, Gd, and Sm based on contents thereof by a weighted average of ionic radii of Cl and Br based on contents thereof is 0.4900 or more and 0.5050 or less (c=0.1, b=0.2, 0<d<6, Ra=0.9134, Rb=1.98-1.81, Ra/Rb=0.4595-0.5027)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.4595 to 0.5027 broadly overlaps the claimed range of 0.4900 to 0.5050. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 10,
Sun 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 comprises the solid electrolyte material according to claim 1 (Sun, “The present invention also provides a secondary battery, the battery comprises a positive electrode (layer), a negative electrode (layer) and an electrolyte layer between the positive electrode (layer) and the negative electrode (layer); at least one of the positive electrode (layer), the negative electrode (layer)”, see [0058]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20220216507-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Sun’, in view of (US-20220255125-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Suzuki’
Regarding Claim 4,
Sun does not teach the solid electrolyte material according to claim 1, wherein the M1 is Ca.
Suzuki teaches a solid electrolyte wherein M1 is Ca (Suzuki, “In the formula (1), A is one element selected from the group consisting of Li, K and Na. E is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Zr, Hf, Ti and Sn. G is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Mg, Ca, Sr, Cs, Ba, Y, Al, Sc, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu, Cu, Ag, Au, Pb, Bi, In, Sn, Sb, Nb, Ta and W. X is at least one selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br”, see [0019]).
Suzuki teaches that metals in the electrolyte allow for high ionic conductivity (Suzuki, “A becomes appropriate, and a solid electrolyte having a high ionic conductivity is obtained.”, see [0052]).
Sun and Suzuki are analogous as they are both of the same fields of solid-state electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the M1 element as taught in Sun and added a metal such as Ca to the material as such a metal is known in the art to yield high conductivity electrolytes (see MPEP 2144.06) .
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20220216507-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Sun’, in view of ‘Gd-doped Li7La3Zr2O12 garnet-type solid electrolytes for all-solid-state Li-Ion batteries’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Song’, in further view of ‘Investigations on The Effect Of Sm3+ Doping on The Electrochemical Performance of The Li2FeSiO4/C Nanocomposite Cathode Material for Lithium-Ion Batteries’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Sivaraj’ in view of ‘High-Voltage Superionic Halide Solid Electrolytes for All-Solid-State Li-Ion Batteries’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Park’
Regarding Claim 5,
Sun teaches being represented by the following composition formula (1) Li3-2aM1aY-1-b-cBr6--dCl-d, wherein the following mathematical relationships are satisified: 0≤a≤0.2, 0≤d≤6 (Sun, “Li3Y1-dIndCl6, (glass-ceramic phase); wherein, 0≤d≤1; further, d is selected from 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9 or 1.0.”, see [0011]).
Sun does not teach GdbSmc in the same compound wherein 0<b, 0<c.
Song teaches that rare earth Gd doping into the solid electrolyte can improve the room temperature conductivity of the electrolyte (Song, “It is found that LLZGO garnets with x from 0.1 to 0.2 deliver higher conductivities than pristine LLZO. Among these, the Li7.2La3Zr1.8Gd0.2O12 (LLZG2O) sample achieves the highest room-temperature total conductivity of 2.3 × 10−4 S cm−1”, see Abstract)
Sivaraj teaches that rare-earth element Sm doping and that doping into battery materials allows for improve conductivity (Sivaraj, “The Li2Fe0.9Sm0.1SiO4/C sample exhibits an excellent electronic conductivity of 2.346x10-4 Scm-1”, see Abstract).
Park teaches that combining multiple metals in the solid state electrolyte is known in the art (Park, “Here, we report new mixed-metal halide Li3–xM1–xZrxCl6 (M = Y, Er) SEs with high ionic conductivity—up to 1.4 mS cm–1 at 25 °C.”, see Abstract)
Sun, Song, Park, and Sivaraj are analogous as they are all of the same field of battery materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material as taught in Sun with the Sm and Gd as taught in Song and Sivaraj in order to improve the overall conductivity of the solid electrolyte.
Regarding Claim 6,
Modified Sun teaches wherein in the composition formula (1), a mathematical relation a <= 0.15 is satisfied (Sun, “In the specific embodiment of the present invention, b may be selected from 0.2, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6, and more preferably, 1≤b≤3” .see [0007])
Regarding Claim 7,
Modified Sun teaches the solid electrolyte material according to claim 5, wherein in the composition formula (1), a mathematical relation d <= 4.5 is satisfied (Sun, “In the specific embodiment of the present invention, c may be selected from 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9, and more preferably, 3≤c≤6, see [0009]).
Regarding Claim 8,
Modified Sun teaches the solid electrolyte material according to claim 5, wherein in the composition formula (1), a mathematical relation c <= 0.325 is satisfied. (Sivaraj, “The Li2Fe0.9Sm0.1SiO4/C sample exhibits an excellent electronic conductivity of 2.346x10-4 Scm-1”, see Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
However, this is not convincing. The examiner acknowledges that the reference does not by itself teach the scope of claim 1. However, in combination with the other references it teaches the features of claim 1.
On pg. 5, the applicant argues:
“One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that doping methods effective in oxides or silicates cannot be directly applied to halide systems, whose ionic conductivity depends on halide-anion coordination and Li-ion vacancy migration.”
However, this is not convincing. The examiner acknowledges that the garnet and silicate electrolytes are different electrolytes systems than the halide electrolytes. However, considering that the primary refence highlights that Sm and Gd are elements common in halide electrolytes there would be a reasonable expectation that doping of the halide would, in view of Song and Sivaraj, have a positive improvement on battery performance, as they are known in the art (see MPEP 2143 (I)(B)).
On pg. 6, the applicant argues:
“One cannot apply the trigonal crystal system concept from Ikejiri and arbitrarily apply it to Izuru.”
The examiner finds this persuasive and has introduced an additional reference which teaches the trigonal structure for a more analogous crystal, which would make the crystal structure obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The examiner adds to the record ‘Progress and perspectives on halide lithium conductors for all-solid-state lithium batteries’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Li.’ Li teaches that chloride-based ternary halides have a trigonal phase. Therefore, considering that the compound is a chloride based ternary halide it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that would be the inherent structure.
On pg. 6, the applicant argues:
“Accordingly, the solid electrolyte material in the present application not only achieves the trigonal phase but also promotes its formation through specific multicomponent element selection, resulting in an unexpected and significant increase in ionic conductivity.”
However, this is not convincing. It is known in the art that multiple transition metal can improve the ion conductivity of the electrolyte. The examiner introduces ‘High-Voltage Superionic Halide Solid Electrolytes for All-Solid-State Li-Ion Batteries’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Park’. Park teaches halides with an ionic conductivity with multiple elements and the ionic conductivity is within the range of the examples (Park, “Here, we report new mixed-metal halide Li3–xM1–xZrxCl6 (M = Y, Er) SEs with high ionic conductivity—up to 1.4 mS cm–1 at 25 °C.”, see Abstract) Therefore, the results as presented are not unexpected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 5pm.
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.
/S.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OLATUNJI A GODO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752