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 .
Summary
This is the response to the RCE filed on 03/20/2026.
Claims 1-8, 10-14 and 16-21 remain pending in the application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by He et al. (CN114497710 with provided machine English translation).
Addressing claim 1, He discloses a material having the claimed formula [0033-0041]:
Li7-δM’αLa3-βM’’βZr2-γM’’’γO12
δ is between -1 and 2 [0033], that encompasses the claimed range;
M’ includes Ca and α is between 0 and 1, that falls within the claimed range for x;
when β is zero [0034], the subscript for La is 3;
M’’’ is one of Ta, Nb, Mo, Sb, Te and W [0037] and γ is between 0 and 2 [0034], which overlaps with the claimed range;
wherein the material has a cubic structure (cubic garnet type solid electrolyte material, [n0001]).
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-14 and 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN114497710 with provided machine English translation).
Addressing claims 1-8, 10-14 and 16-18, He discloses a material having the chemical formula [0033-0041]:
Li7-δM’αLa3-βM’’βZr2-γM’’’γO12
δ is between -1 and 2 [n0034], that encompasses the claimed range;
M’ includes Ca or Y [n0035], as that of the claimed M1, and α is between 0 and 1, that falls within the claimed range for x;
when β is zero [0034], the subscript for La is 3;
M’’’ is one of Ta, Nb, Mo, Sb, Te and W [n0037], as those of the claimed M2, and γ is between 0 and 2 [n0034], which overlaps with the claimed range;
wherein the material has a cubic structure (cubic garnet type solid electrolyte material, [n0001]).
He discloses the cubic solid electrolyte material having the above chemical formula having the claimed elements along with the respective mole fractions that fall within, overlap and encompass the respective claimed ranges. He further discloses in paragraph [n0044] that the concentration of M’, M’’ and M’’’ to adjust Li content, cell parameters, achieving optimal balance between lithium ion concentration and lithium ion transport channels. Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify material of He by perform routine experimentation with elements of M', M’’, M’’’ and the respective concentration in the ranges disclosed by He in order to optimize the Li content, cell parameters, achieving optimal balance between lithium ion concentration and lithium ion transport channels (He, [n0044]). Therefore, one would have arrived at the material having the claimed chemical formula when formulating the material based on the components disclosed by He when perform routine experimentations in order to optimize the Li content, cell parameters, achieving optimal balance between lithium ion concentration and lithium ion transport channels.
Addressing claim 19, He discloses the claimed lithium battery in paragraph [n0016].
Addressing claim 20, He discloses the solid electrolyte layer having the claimed thickness in paragraph [n0079].
Addressing claim 21, He discloses a material having the chemical formula [0033-0041]:
Li7-δM’αLa3-βM’’βZr2-γM’’’γO12
δ is between -1 and 2 [0034], that encompasses the claimed range;
M’ includes Mg [n0035], as that of the claimed M1, and α is between 0 and 1, that falls within the claimed range for x;
when β is zero [0034], the subscript for La is 3;
M’’’ is one of Ta, Nb, Mo, Sb, Te and W [0037], as those of the claimed M2, and γ is between 0 and 2 [0034], which overlaps with the claimed range;
wherein the material has a cubic structure (cubic garnet type solid electrolyte material, [n0001]).
He discloses the cubic solid electrolyte material having the above chemical formula having the claimed elements along with the respective atomic fractions that fall within, overlap and encompass the respective claimed ranges. Therefore, the material having the chemical formula of current claims would have been obvious based on the teaching of He.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nuttall et al. (US2023/0178795).
Addressing claim 21, Nuttall discloses a solid electrolyte material with stable garnet cubic structure (Abstract, [0060]) having the formula Li7-wAaLa3-bBbZr2-cCcO12-zXz [0110]. The subscript W is 0 ≤w≤ 1.5, which results in 7-w that overlaps with the claimed range of 7 + δ with -0.2 < δ < 0.2. The element A is the structural equivalence to the claimed M1 because A includes Mg with the subscript a being 0 ≤a≤ 0.5 that falls within the claimed range of 0 <x≤ 1. The element B is optional with b being zero, which results in Zr2 as claimed. The element C as the structural equivalence to the claimed M2 because C includes Ta, Nb or Sb with the subscript c being 0 ≤c≤ 0.6 that falls within the claimed range of 0 < y ≤ 1. The subscript 12-z for O is 12 when z = 0. Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed lithium garnet material when perform routine experimentation with the composition of the lithium garnet material within the ranges and element selections disclosed by Nuttall in order to optimize ion conductivity [0107], reduction in energy requirements and manufacturing cost, ease of scale-up, reduced level of chemical waste [0109].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8, 10-14 and 16-21 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 arguments filed 03/20/2026 regarding the potential rejection of new claim 21 based on the teaching of Nuttall have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicants argued that the composition of Nuttall having elements with wide range of valence numbers does not disclose or suggest a composition comprising M1 (mg) and M2 as a substitute for a part of Zr site and comprising M1 (Mg) and M2 as a substitute for a part of Zr site and comprising M1 (Mg) as an element with oxidation number lower than 4+ and M2 as an element with oxidation number higher than 4+. The argument is not persuasive because the same elements of the composition disclosed by Nuttall have the same oxidation numbers as those of current application; for example, Mg having oxidation number lower than 4+ and Sb with oxidation number higher than 4+ as the structural equivalence to the claimed M1 and M2, respectively. Therefore, the material having the claimed chemical formula of claim 21 would have been obvious based on the teaching of Nuttall because Nuttall discloses the solid electrolyte material having the chemical formula including the claimed elements having the mole fractions that satisfy the claimed ranges. The claim does not recite that M1, M2 and M3 as substitute for a part of Zr site. Therefore, the Applicants’ argument is not pertained to the claimed subject matter. For the reasons above, Examiner maintains the position that claim 21 is unpatentable over the disclosure of Nuttall.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BACH T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-5118. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571)-272-1307. 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.
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 05/13/2026
Prosecution Insights