DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 6/1/2026.
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 3/17/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 6/1/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 20140370396 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kang et al. teaches a solid electrolyte layer (solid electrolyte ([0043]) and Experimental Example 1 ([0051])) comprising:
a first compound (Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3, [0057]) represented by LiaM2(PO4)3 . . . (1) (a = 1.3; M = Al and Ti, 0.3 + 1.7 = 2, see Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3, [0057]); and
wherein, in the first compound (Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3, [0057]), a satisfies 0.9≤ a≤ 1.4 (a = 1.3, see Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3, [0057]), M is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Zr, Ti, Ge, Al, Hf, Ca, Ba, Sr, Sc, Y and In (M = Al and Ti, see Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3, [0057]).
Experimental Example 1 of Kang et al. does not teach comprising: a second compound represented by M′P2O7 . . . (2),
in the second compound, M′ is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Zr, Ti, Ge, Al, Hf, Sc, Y and In, and
an abundance ratio of the second compound is 0.5 volume % or more and less than 10 volume %.
In a different embodiment, Kang et al. teaches comprising:
a second compound (TiP2O7, [0043]) represented by M′P2O7 . . . (2) (M’ = Ti, see TiP2O7, [0043]),
in the second compound (TiP2O7, [0043]), M′ is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Zr, Ti, Ge, Al, Hf, Sc, Y and In (M’ = Ti, see TiP2O7, [0043]), and
an abundance ratio (volume% of TiP2O7 to total volume of Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3 and TiP2O7, see Examiner’s Calculation Table of Volume%) of the second compound (TiP2O7, [0043]) is 0.5 volume % or more and less than 10 volume % (≤ 0.96%, calculation see Examiner’s Calculation Table of Volume%; note: impurity TiP2O7 is 1 wt% or less, see [0043]).
Examiner’s Calculation Table of Volume%
compound
Mass (wt%)
Density (g/cm3)
Volume
Volume% of TiP2O7 to total volume of Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3 and TiP2O7
Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3
99
2.92a
33.9
TiP2O7
≤ 1
3.052b
≤ 0.328
0.328 / (33.9 + 0.328) ≤ 0.96%
aDuluard et al. Title: Lithium conducting solid electrolyte Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3 obtained via solution chemistry. Journal of the European Ceramic Society 33 (2013) 1145–1153. Density of Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3 see page 1146.
bMerroun et al. Title: Comparative study between the Titanium Phosphate TiP2O7 and the Phosphate Fertilizers in the catalysis of the Quinazolin-4(3H)-one derivatives synthesis. Mediterranean Journal of Chemistry 10(6):553. Density of TiP2O7 see page 556.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to prepare the solid electrolyte of Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3 taught by Kang et al. to have the TiP2O7 impurity with a volume% of 0.5 volume % or more and less than 0.96 volume % as taught by Kang et al. because it’s known in the art that such solid electrolyte prepared with a chemical formula of Li1+xAlxM2−x(PO4)3, where M is a metal and x is 0.1 to 0.6, have an impurity TiP2O7 content of 1 wt % or less (see Kang et al. [0043]). Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US 20070202414 A1, provided on IDS filed on 10/24/2025) in view of Kang et al. (US 20140370396 A1).
Yoshida et al. teaches an all-solid-state battery (all-solid-state battery, [0023], see Fig. 1) comprising:
the solid electrolyte layer (3, Fig. 1) comprising:
a first compound (Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3, see solid electrolyte composition of Example 1, Table 1, [0059]) represented by LiaM2(PO4)3 . . . (1) (a = 1.3; M = Al and Ti, 0.3 + 1.7 = 2, see Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3, solid electrolyte composition of Example 1, Table 1, [0059]); and
wherein, in the first compound (Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3, solid electrolyte composition of Example 1, Table 1, [0059]), a satisfies 0.9≤ a≤ 1.4 (a = 1.3, see Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3, solid electrolyte composition of Example 1, Table 1, [0059]), M is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Zr, Ti, Ge, Al, Hf, Ca, Ba, Sr, Sc, Y and In (M = Al and Ti, see Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3, solid electrolyte composition of Example 1, Table 1, [0059]).;
a positive electrode (1, Fig. 1); and
a negative electrode (2, Fig. 1), the positive electrode (1, Fig. 1) and the negative electrode (2, Fig. 1) sandwiching the solid electrolyte layer (3, Fig. 1).
Yoshida et al. does not teach the solid electrolyte layer comprising: a second compound represented by M′P2O7 . . . (2),
in the second compound, M′ is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Zr, Ti, Ge, Al, Hf, Sc, Y and In, and
an abundance ratio of the second compound is 0.5 volume % or more and less than 10 volume %.
Kang et al. teaches comprising:
a second compound (TiP2O7, [0043]) represented by M′P2O7 . . . (2) (M’ = Ti, see TiP2O7, [0043]),
in the second compound (TiP2O7, [0043]), M′ is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Zr, Ti, Ge, Al, Hf, Sc, Y and In (M’ = Ti, see TiP2O7, [0043]), and
an abundance ratio (volume% of TiP2O7 to total volume of Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3 and TiP2O7, see Examiner’s Calculation Table of Volume%) of the second compound (TiP2O7, [0043]) is 0.5 volume % or more and less than 10 volume % (≤ 0.96%, calculation see Examiner’s Calculation Table of Volume%; note: impurity TiP2O7 is 1 wt% or less, see [0043]).
Examiner’s Calculation Table of Volume%
compound
Mass (wt%)
Density (g/cm3)
Volume
Volume% of TiP2O7 to total volume of Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3 and TiP2O7
Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3
99
2.92a
33.9
TiP2O7
≤ 1
3.052b
≤ 0.328
0.328 / (33.9 + 0.328) ≤ 0.96%
aDuluard et al. Title: Lithium conducting solid electrolyte Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3 obtained via solution chemistry. Journal of the European Ceramic Society 33 (2013) 1145–1153. Density of Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3 see page 1146.
bMerroun et al. Title: Comparative study between the Titanium Phosphate TiP2O7 and the Phosphate Fertilizers in the catalysis of the Quinazolin-4(3H)-one derivatives synthesis. Mediterranean Journal of Chemistry 10(6):553. Density of TiP2O7 see page 556.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the preparation the solid electrolyte of Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3 taught by Yoshida et al. to have the TiP2O7 impurity with a volume% of 0.5 volume % or more and less than 0.96 volume % as taught by Kang et al. because it’s known in the art that such solid electrolyte prepared with a chemical formula of Li1+xAlxM2−x(PO4)3, where M is a metal and x is 0.1 to 0.6, have an impurity TiP2O7 content of 1 wt % or less (see Kang et al. [0043]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 20140370396 A1) in view of LAINE et al. (US 2021/0028444 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Kang et al. does not teach wherein an average grain diameter Da of the first compound and an average grain diameter Db of the second compound satisfy 0.1≤Da/Db≤20.0.
LAINE et al. teaches wherein an average grain diameter (average grain sizes (AGSs), [0360]) Da of the first compound (MZPCe0.2 (Mg0.5Ce0.2Zr1.8(PO4)3), see [0360], [0369]) and an average grain diameter (average grain sizes (AGSs), [0360]) Db of the second compound (ZrP2O7, [0360]) satisfy 0.1≤Da/Db≤20.0 (Da/Db = 2.25 or 3.25; AGS of MZPCe0.2 is 550 ± 100 nm, AGS of ZrP2O7 is 200 nm; see [0360]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the ratio from the average grain diameter of Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3 to the average grain diameter of TiP2O7 taught by Kang et al. to be either 2.25 or 3.25 as taught by LAINE et al. to have the films fracture in an intra-granular mode and show a flat fracture surface (see LAINE et al. [0359]).
Regarding Claim 3, Kang et al. does not teach wherein an average grain diameter Db of the second compound satisfies 0.01 μm≤Db≤10 μm.
LAINE et al. teaches wherein an average grain diameter Db (average grain sizes (AGSs), [0360]) of the second compound (ZrP2O7, [0360]) satisfies 0.01 μm≤Db≤10 μm (200 nm, 0.2 µm, [0360]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the average grain diameter of TiP2O7 taught by Kang et al. to be 200 nm (0.2 µm) as taught by LAINE et al. because small grain size is, thus, an essential prerequisite for high-performance ionic conductors (see LAINE et al. [0361]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection (Kang et al. US 20140370396 A1) does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 NING CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1163. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM - 4:30 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/NING CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights