DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a final office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 22 July 2026. Claims 1, 11, 14, 16 and 20 are currently amended. Claim 10 is canceled. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are pending review in this action. The previous objections to the Specification are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s corresponding amendment. The previous 35 U.S.C 112 rejections are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are presented below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 2 June 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities. Line 16 of the claim reads includes the misspelt word: “homogenizating”.
The correct spelling is “homogenizing”.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities.
The dispersant is an original component of the second mixed slurry. To avoid potential ambiguity, the word “added” on line 2 should be deleted, such that the claim reads:
“The method of claim 1, wherein in step (S2), a weight percentage of the dispersant in the second mixed slurry is greater than or equal to 10% and less than or equal to 20%”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 3 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the defoaming tank" on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4-9 and 11-20 are allowed.
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance. The claimed method of making a solid oxide electrolyte membrane is novel over the closest prior art of record: Holme (US PG Pub 2015/0200420) in view of Wachsman (US PG Pub 2021/0257658), Yamada (US PG Pub 2020/0373612) and Badding (US PG Pub 2023/0295049).
Holme as modified by Wachsman, Yamada and Badding teaches all of the claimed limitations except for a step of adding a second amount of reagent B into the fourth mixed slurry to form a fifth mixed slurry so that a lithium fluorination reaction occurs after homogenizing the fifth mixed slurry. Moreover, the prior art contains no motivation for including this step in the combination of Holme, Wachsman, Yamada and Badding.
Conclusion
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 LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 5.00 PM.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
LILIA V. NEDIALKOVA
Examiner
Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
