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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/19/23, 2/7/24, 10/2/25 were filed on 6/19/23, 2/7/24, 10/2/25. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 8/9/23 are accepted by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the second “Cr” is a duplicate and should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2, 3, and 7-11 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. It is unclear how “the trivalent metal” and “the transition metal” can be the same element because both claims 2 and 3 recite “Fe” & “V” and claim 1 requires both “A is a trivalent metal” and “B is a transition metal”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the NASICON-type crystal structure" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown et al (US 2019/0237765).
Regarding claims 1-11, Brown et al discloses a lithium ion battery (solid-state battery) comprising a cathode, an anode, and a solid electrolyte or a silicate composition/organic electrolyte matrix (hybrid solid electrolyte), wherein the electrolyte matrix comprises silicate composition fibres (lithium-based solid electrolyte material), a lithium ion conducting organic electrolyte (e.g. PAN or PEO (polymer solid electrolyte) combined with LiClO4 (inorganic salt)); wherein an example of the silicate composition fibres includes Li3.3La0.3Zr1.7Si2PO12 (lithium-based solid electrolyte material, A is La, B is Zr, x = 0.3, d = 0), wherein Li3.3La0.3Zr1.7Si2PO12 inherently has a NASICON-type crystal structure that is selected from a rhombohedral and a monoclinic structure because Brown teaches the same Li3+xAxB2-xSi2PO12-dCd material as the present invention; wherein examples of the solid polymer electrolyte include PEO, PAN, polyvinyl chloride, PVDF, PMMA, and PVDF-HFP; wherein examples of the lithium salt (inorganic salt) include lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSi), lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6), lithium perchlorate (LiClO4), and lithium tetrafluoroborate (LiBF4) ([0053],[0058],[0064],[0287],[0298],[0299],[0302], Table 2, Sample C-5).
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.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 2019/0237765) in view of Pei (CN 103904360 A, machine translation).
Regarding claims 12-15, Brown et al discloses a lithium ion battery (solid-state battery) comprising a cathode, an anode, and a solid electrolyte or a silicate composition/organic electrolyte matrix (hybrid solid electrolyte), wherein the electrolyte matrix comprises silicate composition fibres (solid electrolyte material), a lithium ion conducting organic electrolyte (e.g. PAN or PEO (polymer solid electrolyte) combined with LiClO4 (inorganic salt)); wherein an example of the silicate composition fibres includes Li3.3La0.3Zr1.7Si2PO12 (lithium-based solid electrolyte material, A is La, B is Zr, x = 0.3, d = 0), wherein Li3.3La0.3Zr1.7Si2PO12 inherently has a NASICON-type crystal structure that is selected from a rhombohedral and a monoclinic structure because Brown teaches the same Li3+xAxB2-xSi2PO12-dCd material as the present invention; wherein examples of the solid polymer electrolyte include PEO, PAN, polyvinyl chloride, PVDF, PMMA, and PVDF-HFP; wherein examples of the lithium salt (inorganic salt) include lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSi), lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6), lithium perchlorate (LiClO4), and lithium tetrafluoroborate (LiBF4) ([0053],[0058],[0064],[0287],[0298],[0299],[0302], Table 2, Sample C-5).
However, Brown et al does not expressly teach a solid electrolyte material selected from the group consisting of Li3.4Zr1.6Sc0.4Si2PO12, Li3.25Zr1.75Sc0.25Si2PO12, Li3.4Zr1.6Sc0.4Si2PO11.95Cl0.05, Li3.4Zr1.6Sc0.4Si2PO11.9Cl0.1, Li3.25Zr1.75Sc0.25Si2PO11.95Cl0.05, and Li3.25Zr1.75Sc0.25Si2PO11.9Cl0.1 (claim 12).
Pei discloses a solid electrolyte comprising an ion conductor Li7M3ZrO12 (solid electrolyte material), wherein M can be one or more components selected from La, Al, Sr, Sc, … (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Brown silicate composition fibres to include Li3.3Sc0.3Zr1.7Si2PO12 in order to improve the interface between the electrodes and the solid electrolyte to provide low interface impedance and grain resistance, and improved durability and circulation performance (Abstract). In addition, the substitution of one known M component for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Lastly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Brown/Pei silicate composition fibres to include Li3.4Sc0.4Zr1.6Si2PO12 or Li3.25Sc0.25Zr1.75Si2PO12 because changes in proportion was held to have been obvious (In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed composition of the solid electrolyte material.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2016/0064785).
Regarding claims 1-11, Kim et al discloses a lithium secondary battery (solid-state battery) comprising a cathode, an anode, and a solid electrolyte/cathode interlayer that is an organic/inorganic composite electrolyte (hybrid solid electrolyte), wherein the organic/inorganic composite electrolyte comprises inorganic electrolyte (solid electrolyte material), an ion conducting polymer that includes a blend of a lithium salt and polyethylene oxide (polymer solid electrolyte); wherein examples of the lithium salt (inorganic salt) include lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSi), lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6), lithium perchlorate (LiClO4), and lithium tetrafluoroborate (LiBF4), lithium hexafluoroarsenate LiAsF6 ([0043]-[0047],[0051],[0052]-[0054],[0071], [0079],[0080]).
However, Kim et al does not expressly teach a lithium-based solid electrolyte material comprising Li3+xAXB2-xSi2PO12-dCd wherein: A is a trivalent metal, B is a transition metal, C is a halogen or sulfur, x is 0.01 to 0.5, d is 0 to 12 (claim 1); wherein the trivalent metal is selected from the group consisting of Sc, Y, La, Cr, Al, Fe, V, Cr, In, Ga, and Lu (claim 2); wherein the transition metal is selected from the group consisting of Ti, Ge, Ta, Zr, Sn, Fe, V, Hf, Nb, Sb and As (claim 3); wherein the halogen is selected from the group consisting of chlorine, fluorine, bromine, and iodine (claim 4); wherein d is 0 (claim 5); wherein the material has a NASICON-type crystal structure (claim 6); wherein the NASICON-type crystal structure is selected from the group consisting of a rhombohedral and a monoclinic structure (claim 7).
Kim et al also discloses examples of the inorganic electrolyte including Cu3N, … , Li1+q+yQqTi2-qSiyP3-yO12, where 0<q≤0.4, 0<y≤0.6, and Q (trivalent metal) is Al or Ga (lithium-based solid electrolyte material, A is Al or Ga, B is Ti (transition metal), 0<x≤0.4, d = 0), …; wherein Li3+qAlqTi2-qSi2PO12 or Li3+qGaqTi2-qSi2PO12 inherently has a NASICON-type crystal structure that is selected from a rhombohedral and a monoclinic structure because Kim teaches the same Li3+xAxB2-xSi2PO12-dCd material as the present invention ([0051]).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because the disclosure of Kim et al indicates that Li3+qAlqTi2-qSi2PO12 or Li3+qGaqTi2-qSi2PO12 is a suitable material for use as an inorganic electrolyte material. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has generally been held to be prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.07). As such, it would be obvious to use Li3+qAlqTi2-qSi2PO12 or Li3+qGaqTi2-qSi2PO12.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2016/0064785) in view of Pei (CN 103904360 A, machine translation).
Regarding claims 12-15, Kim et al discloses a lithium secondary battery (solid-state battery) comprising a cathode, an anode, and a solid electrolyte/cathode interlayer that is an organic/inorganic composite electrolyte (hybrid solid electrolyte), wherein the organic/inorganic composite electrolyte comprises inorganic electrolyte (solid electrolyte material), an ion conducting polymer that includes a blend of a lithium salt and polyethylene oxide (polymer solid electrolyte); wherein examples of the lithium salt (inorganic salt) include lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSi), lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6), lithium perchlorate (LiClO4), and lithium tetrafluoroborate (LiBF4), lithium hexafluoroarsenate LiAsF6 ([0043]-[0047],[0051],[0052]-[0054],[0071], [0079],[0080]); wherein example of the inorganic electrolyte include Cu3N, … , Li3Zr2Si2PO12, … , Li1+q+yQqTi2-qSiyP3-yO12, where 0<q≤0.4, 0<y≤0.6, and Q is Al or Ga (lithium-based solid electrolyte material, A is Al or Ga, B is Ti, 0<x≤0.4, d = 0), …; wherein Li3+qAlqTi2-qSi2PO12 or Li3+qGaqTi2-qSi2PO12 inherently has a NASICON-type crystal structure that is selected from a rhombohedral and a monoclinic structure because Kim teaches the same Li3+xAxB2-xSi2PO12-dCd material as the present invention ([0051]).
However, Kim et al does not expressly teach a solid electrolyte material selected from the group consisting of Li3.4Zr1.6Sc0.4Si2PO12, Li3.25Zr1.75Sc0.25Si2PO12, Li3.4Zr1.6Sc0.4Si2PO11.95Cl0.05, Li3.4Zr1.6Sc0.4Si2PO11.9Cl0.1, Li3.25Zr1.75Sc0.25Si2PO11.95Cl0.05, and Li3.25Zr1.75Sc0.25Si2PO11.9Cl0.1 (claim 12).
Pei discloses a solid electrolyte comprising an ion conductor Li7M3ZrO12 (solid electrolyte material), wherein M can be one or more components selected from La, Al, Sr, Sc, … (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Kim inorganic electrolyte to include Li3+xAxB2-xSi2PO12-dCd, where A is Sc, B is Zr, and d is 0 in order to improve the interface between the electrodes and the solid electrolyte to provide low interface impedance and grain resistance, and improved durability and circulation performance (Abstract). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Kim/Pei inorganic to include Li3.4Sc0.4Zr1.6Si2PO12 or Li3.25Sc0.25Zr1.75Si2PO12 because changes in proportion was held to have been obvious (In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)). Further, Kim et al also discloses that “The crystalline lithium ion conducting compound may comprise, for example, Li1+x+y(AlzGa1−z)x″(TiyGe1−y)2−x″Siy′P3−y′O12 (wherein 0≦z≦1, 0≦y≦1, 0≦x″≦1′ and 0≦y′≦1, for example wherein 0≦x≦0.4 and 0<y≦0.6, or 0.1≦x≦0.3 and 0.1<y≦0.4). To attain improved ion conductivity, the crystalline lithium ion conducting compound may not include a grain boundary that impedes ion conduction” ([0071]). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed composition of the solid electrolyte material.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 12, and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-9, and 12-14 of copending Application No. 18/205,712 in view of Brown et al (US 2019/0237765).
Copending Application No. 18/205,712 claims a solid-state battery comprising a cathode, an anode, and a hybrid solid electrolyte; a lithium-based solid electrolyte material comprising Li3+xAXB2-xSi2PO12-dCd wherein: A is a trivalent metal, B is a transition metal, C is a halogen or sulfur, x is 0.01 to 0.5 d is 0 to 12; wherein the trivalent metal is selected from the group consisting of Sc, Y, La, Cr, Al, Fe, V, Cr, In, Ga, and Lu; wherein the transition metal is selected from the group consisting of Ti, Ge, Ta, Zr, Sn, Fe, V, Hf, Nb, Sb and As; wherein the halogen is selected from the group consisting of chlorine, fluorine, bromine, and iodine; wherein d is 0; and a hybrid solid electrolyte comprising a solid electrolyte material selected from the group consisting of Li3.4Zr1.6Sc0
PNG
media_image1.png
2
2
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.4Si2PO12, Li3.25Zr1.75Sc0
PNG
media_image1.png
2
2
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.25Si2PO12, Li3.4Zr1.6Sc0
PNG
media_image1.png
2
2
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.4Si2PO11.95Cl0.05,
PNG
media_image1.png
2
2
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Li3.4Zr1.6Sc0.4Si2PO11.9Cl0.1, Li3.25Zr1.75Sc0.25Si2PO11.95Cl0.05, and Li3.25Zr1.75Sc0.25Si2PO11.9Cl0.1.
However, copending Application No. 18/205,712 does not claim a hybrid solid electrolyte comprising a polymer solid electrolyte and an inorganic salt.
Brown et al discloses an electrolyte matrix (hybrid solid electrolyte) comprises silicate composition fibres (solid electrolyte material), a lithium ion conducting organic electrolyte (e.g. PAN or PEO (polymer solid electrolyte) combined with LiClO4 (inorganic salt)) ([0064]-[0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the copending Application No. 18/205,712 hybrid solid electrolyte to include a polymer solid electrolyte and an inorganic salt in order to utilize conventional solid electrolyte materials for lithium ion batteries that increase ionic conductivity.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY S CHUO whose telephone number is (571)272-0717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
/T.S.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 12/16/2025
Prosecution Insights