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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fu et al (Processing and characterization of an Li7La3Zr0.5Nb0.5Ta0.5Hf0.5O12 high-entropy Li–garnet electrolyte. J Am Ceram Soc. 2022; 105: 6175–6183).
Regarding Claim 1, Fu teaches a solid-state battery (lithium batteries, see abstract) comprising a Li-garnet ceramic electrolyte (Li-garnet electrolyte, see page 6176/col 2/lines 1-2) comprising: a powder with a chemical composition of Li7La3Zr0.5Nb0.5Ta0.5Hf0.5O12 (LLZNTH Li-garnet powder, see abstract & page 6176/col 2/lines 1-2).
Regarding Claim 3, Fu teaches the limitations as set forth above and further teaches wherein the powder (LLZNTH Li-garnet powder; see abstract) has a density of about 93-94% at a temperature of about 1100°C (see page 6179, col1/lines 1-9 which describes a relative density of ~94% after sintering at 1100°C).
Regarding Claim 4, Fu teaches all the limitations as set forth above and further teaches wherein the powder (LLZNTH Li-garnet powder, see abstract) has a fine grain size of about 1-10µm (see page 6179, col2/lines 10-11 which describes that grain size in the range of 1-10µm).
Regarding Claim 5, Fu teaches all of the limitations as set forth above and further teaches wherein Nb and Ta are of equimolar amounts on the Zr site (see page 6176/col 2/lines 3-4 which describes that Zr, Nb, Ta and Hf are equimolar on the Zr site).
Regarding Claim 6, Fu teaches all of the limitations as set forth above and further teaches wherein Zr and Hf are of equimolar amounts on the Zr site (see page 6176/col 2/lines 3-4 which describes that Zr, Nb, Ta and Hf are equimolar on the Zr site).
Regarding Claim 7, Fu teaches all of the limitations as set forth above and further teaches wherein the powder has a single cubic garnet phase (space group:
I
a
3
-
d
; No. 230) with uniform elements distributions (see abstract).
Regarding Claim 8, Fu teaches all of the limitations as set forth above and further teaches wherein the powder (LLZNTH Li-garnet powder) has an ionic conductivity of about 4.67x10-4 S cm-1 at room temperature (see abstract).
Regarding Claim 9, Fu teaches all of the limitations as set forth above and further teaches wherein the powder (LLZNTH Li-garnet powder) has an activation energy of about 0.25eV or less (0.25eV, see abstract).
Regarding Claim 10, Fu teaches all of the limitations as set forth above and further teaches wherein the powder (LLZNTH Li-garnet powder) has an electronic conductivity in the order of about 10-8S cm-1 or less (10-8S cm-1, see abstract).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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 2, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fu et al (Processing and characterization of an Li7La3Zr0.5Nb0.5Ta0.5Hf0.5O12 high-entropy Li–garnet electrolyte. J Am Ceram Soc. 2022;105:6175–6183).
Regarding Claim 2, while Fu teaches the limitations as set forth above and further teaches that the powder is a high-entropy Li-garnet (see abstract), Fu does not explicitly teach wherein the powder has an entropy greater than 1.5R.
In the Instant Specification, Applicant discloses ([0005] an interpretation of high entropy ceramics having an entropy greater than 1.5R and further discloses that the LLZNTH Li7La3Zro.5Nb0.5Ta0.5Hf0.5O12 powder is a high-entropy Li-garnet which may have an entropy greater than 1.5R (see [0015]-[0017]).
MPEP § 2112.01.II states that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.
Fu discloses that the basic format of high-entropy ceramic is having at least four different equimolar elements on the same site (see page 6176/col 1/lines 35-37) and teaches a novel high-entropy Li–garnet electrolyte with the chemical formula of Li7La3Zr0.5Nb0.5Ta0.5Hf0.5O12, in which Zr, Nb, Ta and Hf are equimolar on the Zr site (see page 6176/col 2/lines 1-4). Fu further concludes that the single phase Li7La3Zr0.5Nb0.5Ta0.5Hf0.5O12 is a high-entropy Li-garnet electrolyte (see conclusion on page 6182).
It is submitted that the high entropy Li-garnet powder of Fu is substantially similar to the instant Li-garnet powder. Based upon such similarities, it appears reasonable that the high-entropy Li-garnet of Fu would inherently possess properties such that the powder would necessarily fulfill the recited limitation i.e. wherein the powder has an entropy greater than 1.5R.
Assuming, arguendo, that the property recited in the claimed limitation is not anticipated, as there is no evidence on the record that any differences between the instantly claimed powder Li7La3Zro.5Nbo.5Tao.5Hfo.5012 having an entropy greater than 1.5 and that of Fu are critical, and as the conditions of the prior art significantly overlap the relevant conditions disclosed in the Instant Specification, it is submitted that prior to the effective filing date, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the Li7La3Zro.5Nbo.5Tao.5Hfo.5012 powder of Fu and that of the Instant Application to be obvious variants of one another.
Regarding Claims 11-12, Fu teaches the limitations as set forth above but is silent on wherein the powder has a flexural strength of at least 84.8±6.9 MPa (as required by Claim 11) and wherein the powder has a hardness of at least 8.5±0.8 GPa (as required by Claim 12).
In the instant specification, Applicant discloses in [0058] that the LLZNTH sample has a lower grain growth parameter due to sluggish effects of high-entropy compounds and therefore maintains fine microstructures which ultimately results in higher flexural strength of 84.8±6.9 MPa and hardness of 8.5±0.8 GPa.
Accordingly, it is reasonably interpreted that the sluggish effect of high-entropy compounds is critical to the low grain growth parameter which ultimately affects the formation of fine microstructures that determine the flexural strength and hardness of the powder.
As described above, Fu discloses that a low grain growth is affected by the identity of the compound which is a high-entropy powder and thus results in the evolution of microstructures (see page 6179/col 2/lines 16-23 & page 6180/col 1/lines1-3).
MPEP § 2112.01.II states that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.
It is submitted that the high entropy Li-garnet powder of Fu is substantially similar to the instant Li-garnet powder. Based upon such similarities, it appears reasonable that the high-entropy Li-garnet of Fu would inherently possess properties such that the powder would necessarily fulfill the recited limitation i.e. wherein the powder has a flexural strength of at least 84.8±6.9 MPa (as required by claim 11) and wherein the powder has a hardness of at least 8.5±0.8 GPa (as required by Claim 12).
Assuming, arguendo, that the property recited in the claimed limitation is not anticipated, as there is no evidence on the record that any differences between the instantly claimed powder Li7La3Zro.5Nbo.5Tao.5Hfo.5012 having a flexural strength of at least 84.8±6.9 MPa (as required by claim 11) and a hardness of at least 8.5±0.8 GPa (as required by claim 12) and that of Fu are critical, and as the conditions of the prior art significantly overlap the relevant conditions disclosed in the Instant Specification, it is submitted that prior to the effective filing date, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the Li7La3Zr0.5Nb0.5Ta0.5Hf0.5O12 powder of Fu and that of the Instant Application to be obvious variants of one another.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FIKI V OWHOSO whose telephone number is (571)272-3418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 5712725453. 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.
/F.V.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights