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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-13 and 19-27) in the reply filed on 09/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 “a main crystal phase including a compound represented Li4B(7-x)MxO12X” should read “a main crystal phase including a compound represented by Li4B(7-x)MxO12x”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10, 13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishioka et al. (US 20190177207 A1, “Ishioka”).
Regarding claim 1, Ishioka discloses a lithium ion conductor (see [0001] “lithium ion conductive glass” & see [0008] “ion conductor”), comprising: a Li element, a B element, an O element, an M element, and an X element wherein the M element is Al, Si, Ge, P, or a combination thereof, and the X element is F, Cl, I, Br, or a combination thereof as a halogen element (see abstract “Li+” & “B3+” & “O2-” & “Si4+” which describes where M is Si & describes “Cl-” which describes X is Cl). Regarding the limitation the lithium ion conductor having a peak due to a main crystal phase at diffraction angles (2θ) of 24.5° to 26°, 32° to 34°, 35.5° to 36.2°, 37.5° to 38.5°, 43.5° to 45.5°, or a combination thereof in an X-ray diffraction analysis spectrum using a CuKα ray, Ishioka does not explicitly disclose, however, peak due to a main crystal phase is a property of the material and Ishioka discloses a similar material as the claimed invention would exhibit similar properties as the claimed invention including diffraction peaks at diffraction angles. XRD is a common analysis and a skilled artisan would find it obvious to use XRD to analyze material properties including diffraction angles and peaks.
Regarding claim 2, Ishioka discloses the lithium ion conductor of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the main crystal phase of the lithium ion conductor includes a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1: [Chemical Formula 1] Li4B(7-x)MxO12X wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, M is Al, Si, Ge, P, or a combination thereof, X is Cl as a halogen element, and 0≤x<7 (see [0148] describes “raw material powders were weighed and mixed so as to attain charge compositions shown in Table 1. As the raw materials, Li2CO3, SiO2, B2O3, LiCl, and Li2S were used in combination” & see Table 2 describes composition Li2O + (LiCl)2 + SiO2 + B2O3 + P2O5 & see [0078] “additional component other than (LiCl)2, Li2O, B2O3, P2O5, and SiO2” & “additional components include, for example, ZrO2, Al2O3, MgO, CaO, SrO, BaO, Sc2O3, Y2O3, La2O3, Ga2O3, and GeO2”).
Regarding claim 5, Ishioka discloses the lithium ion conductor of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the glass includes lithium oxide (Li2O), silicon oxide (SiO2), boron oxide (B2O3), phosphorus oxide (P2O5), germanium oxide (GeO2), aluminum oxide (Al2O3), and lithium halide (Li-X) (see abstract “glass” & see [0071] “glass of the present invention is a glass containing (LiCl)2, Li2O, B2O3 and P2O5 as essential components, and containing SiO2 as an optional component” & see [0078] “seventh glass may contain an additional component other than (LiCl)2, Li2O, B2O3, P2O5, and SiO2” & “the additional components include, for example, ZrO2, Al2O3, MgO, CaO, SrO, BaO, Sc2O3, Y2O3, La2O3, Ga2O3, and GeO2”). Ishioka discloses “crystallization peak temperature of the glass” & “stabilization of the glass” (see [0023]). Regarding the limitation further comprising glass and a crystal phase, Ishioka does not explicitly disclose phases, however, phases are an inherent property of the material.
Regarding claim 6, Ishioka discloses the lithium ion conductor of claim 5 and further discloses wherein 35 to 55 mol % of the lithium oxide (Li2O) (see Table 2 describes composition [mol%] & Li2O & describes value of 40 which lies within the claimed range), 5 to 15 mol% of the silicon oxide (SiO2) (see [0077] “SiO2” & “content thereof is preferably more than 0% and 10% or less” & see Table 2 describes SiO2 & composition [mol%] & 6 which lies within the claimed range), 30 to 50 mol% of the boron oxide (B2O3) (see Table 2 describes B2O3 & describes composition [mol%] & 38.5 which lies within the claimed range), 0.1 to 5.0 mol% of the phosphorus oxide (P2O5) (see Table 2 describes P2O5 & composition [mol%] & 0.5 which lies within the claimed range), 0.1 to 5.0 mol% of the germanium oxide (GeO2), 0.1 to 10 mol% of the aluminum oxide (Al2O3) (see [0078] “additional component other than (LiCl)2, Li2O, B2O3, P2O5, and SiO2. The content of the additional component is 10% or less, preferably 8% or less, and more preferably 6% or less. Stability of the glass can be obtained by keeping the content of the additional component to the small amount” & “Al2O3” & “GeO2” & 6% or less overlaps the claimed ranges), and 0.5 to 10 mol% of the lithium halide (Li-X) are included based on 100 mol% of the total glass (see [0074] “(LiCl)2 in the seventh glass is more than 0% and 30% or less” which overlaps the claimed range of 0.5 to 10 mol% of the lithium halide).
Regarding claim 7, Ishioka discloses the lithium ion conductor claim 5, and further discloses wherein a glass transition temperature (Tg) of the glass is 380 to 450 °C (see [0088] “glass transition point Tg is preferably 200 °C or more and 450 °C or less” which overlaps the claimed range). A skilled artisan would find obvious glass transition temperature is an inherent property of the material.
Regarding claim 8, Ishioka discloses the lithium ion conductor of claim 5 and further discloses wherein a crystallization temperature (Tc) of the glass is 460 to 540 °C (see [0088] “glass transition point Tg is preferably 200 °C or more and 450 °C or less” & [0087] describes “crystallization peak temperature of the glass is taken as Tc and the glass transition point as Tg, (Tc-Tg) is preferably 55 °C or higher. For example, in the case where (Tc−Tg) is 55° C. or higher, the glass can have a dense and stable glass (amorphous) texture when a pulverized product thereof is sintered” & see Table 2 describes Tc = 478 °C which lies within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 10, Ishioka discloses the lithium ion conductor of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the lithium ion conductor further includes a peak at a diffraction angle (2θ) of 21°to 23° in an X-ray diffraction analysis spectrum using a CuKα ray, however, peak due to a main crystal phase is a property of the material and Ishioka discloses a similar material as the claimed invention would exhibit similar properties as the claimed invention including diffraction peak at diffraction angle. XRD is a common analysis and a skilled artisan would find it obvious to use XRD to analyze material properties including diffraction angles and peaks.
Regarding claim 13, Ishioka discloses the lithium ion conductor of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the lithium ion conductor has room-temperature (20°C) ionic conductivity of greater than or equal to 1.0x10-5 [siemens/cm] (see [0091] “The glass of the present invention has a sufficiently high ion conductivity” & describes ion conductivity is “particularly preferably 1.0×10−6 S/cm or more” which overlaps the claimed range & see [0092] In this description, the ion conductivity is a value obtained by AC impedance measurement at room temperature (from 20° C. to 25° C.).
Ishioka discloses a range of 1.0×10−6 S/cm or more, which overlaps with the claimed range of greater than or equal to 1.0x10-5 [siemens/cm]. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 19, Ishioka discloses the lithium ion conductor of claim 1 and further discloses an all-solid-state battery (see [0132] “all-solid-lithium-ion secondary battery”), comprising a solid electrolyte layer and a positive electrode and a negative electrode disposed with the solid electrolyte layer therebetween (see [0132] “positive electrode” & “negative electrode” & “solid electrolyte layer arranged between the positive electrode and the negative electrode”).
Regarding claim 20, Ishioka discloses the all-solid-state battery of claim 19 and further discloses wherein the lithium ion conductor has room-temperature (20°C) ionic conductivity of greater than or equal to 1.0x10-5 [siemens/cm] (see [0091] “The glass of the present invention has a sufficiently high ion conductivity” & describes ion conductivity is “particularly preferably 1.0×10−6 S/cm or more” which overlaps the claimed range & see [0092] In this description, the ion conductivity is a value obtained by AC impedance measurement at room temperature (from 20° C. to 25° C.).
Ishioka discloses a range of 1.0×10−6 S/cm or more, which overlaps with the claimed range of greater than or equal to 1.0x10-5 [siemens/cm]. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishioka et al. (US 20190177207 A1, “Ishioka”) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Shizuka et al. (US 20110003200 A1, “Shizuka”).
Regarding claim 9, Ishioka discloses the lithium ion conductor of claim 5. Ishioka does not explicitly disclose wherein an average grain size of the crystal phase of the lithium ion conductor is 0.5 µm to 2.0 µm, however, crystal phase is an inherent property.
Shizuka teaches grain size (see [0081] “it is preferable that median sizes measured with a laser diffraction/scattering grain size distribution measuring apparatus after 5 minutes of ultrasonic dispersion (output 30 W, frequency 22.5 kHz), where the refractive index is set at 1.24 and the reference of grain size is on a volume basis, are 2 µm or more, and 8 µm or less.”).
Ishioka and Shizuka are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely lithium secondary battery (see Shizuka title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate grain size of 2 µm or more & 8 µm or less as suggested by Shizuka (see [0081]) into the lithium ion conductor of Ishioka because doing so is preferable as suggested by Shizuka (see [0081]).
Claims 3-4, 21-24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishioka et al. (US 20190177207 A1, “Ishioka”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tezuka et al. (Tezuka et al. Synthesis and characterization of lithium-ion-conductive glass-ceramics…).
Regarding claim 3, Ishioka discloses the lithium ion conductor of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the main crystal phase includes Li4B7O12Cl, however, crystal phase is a property of the material & Ishioka discloses a similar material as the claimed invention would exhibit similar properties as the claimed invention including crystal phase.
Tezuka teaches lithium chloroboracite (see title) & see abstract describes “nearly single-phase and almost fully-crystallized glass-ceramics of lithium chloroboracite” & “conductivity of Li4B7O12Cl was much higher”.
Ishioka and Tezuka are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely all-solid-state lithium-ion batteries & improved safety (see Tezuka P348 par 1).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the main crystal phase includes Li4B7O12Cl as suggested by Tezuka (see abstract) into the lithium ion conductor of Ishioka because doing so improves the conductivity, as suggested by Tezuka (see abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Ishioka discloses the lithium ion conductor of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a sub-crystal phase, wherein the sub-crystal phase includes LiBO2, however, sub-crystal phase is a property of the material.
Tezuka teaches sub-crystal phase includes LiBO2 (see Table 1 describes LiBO2 & see P352 par 4 “the conductivity may be further increased by element substitution”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate LiBO2 as suggested by Tezuka (see Table 1) into the lithium ion conductor of Ishioka because doing so improves the conductivity as suggested by Tezuka (see P352 par 4).
Regarding claim 21, Ishioka discloses a lithium ion conductor, comprising a compound represented Li4B(7-x)MXO12X, wherein M is Al, Si, Ge, P or a combination thereof, X is Cl and 0≤x<7 (see [0148] describes “raw material powders were weighed and mixed so as to attain charge compositions shown in Table 1. As the raw materials, Li2CO3, SiO2, B2O3, LiCl, and Li2S were used in combination” & see Table 2 describes composition Li2O + (LiCl)2 + SiO2 + B2O3 + P2O5 & see [0078] “additional component other than (LiCl)2, Li2O, B2O3, P2O5, and SiO2” & additional components include, for example, ZrO2, Al2O3, MgO, CaO, SrO, BaO, Sc2O3, Y2O3, La2O3, Ga2O3, and GeO2”). Regarding the limitation a main crystal phase and a sub crystal phase including LiBO2, Ishioka does not explicitly disclose, however, crystal phases are inherent properties of the material.
Tezuka teaches a main crystal phase of Li4B7O12Cl (see abstract “nearly single-phase and almost fully crystallized glass-ceramics of lithium chloroboracite” & “conductivity of Li4B7O12Cl was much higher”). Tezuka teaches a sub-crystal phase includes LiBO2 (see Table 1 & see P352 par 4 “the conductivity may be further increased by element substitution”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate main crystal phase of Li4B7O12Cl & sub-crystal phase of LiBO2 as suggested by Tezuka (see Table 2 & P352 & abstract) into the lithium ion conductor of Ishioka because doing so improves the conductivity as suggested by Tezuka (see abstract & P352 par 4).
Regarding claim 22, Ishioka discloses the lithium ion conductor of claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the main crystal phase includes Li4B7O12Cl, however, crystal phase is a property of the material.
Tezuka teaches Li4B7O12Cl (see abstract “nearly single-phase and almost fully-crystallized glass-ceramics of lithium chloroboracite” & “conductivity of Li4B7O12Cl was much higher”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Li4B7O12Cl as the main crystal phase as suggested by Tezuka (see abstract) into the lithium ion conductor of Ishioka because doing so improves the conductivity as suggested by Tezuka (see abstract).
Regarding claim 23, Ishioka discloses the lithium ion conductor of claim 21 and further discloses wherein the glass includes lithium oxide (Li2O), silicon oxide (SiO2), boron oxide (B2O3), phosphorus oxide (P2O5), germanium oxide (GeO2), aluminum oxide (Al2O3), and lithium halide (Li-X) (see abstract “glass” & see [0071] “glass of the present invention is a glass containing (LiCl)2, Li2O, B2O3 and P2O5 as essential components, and containing SiO2 as an optional component” & see [0078] “seventh glass may contain an additional component other than (LiCl)2, Li2O, B2O3, P2O5, and SiO2” & “the additional components include, for example, ZrO2, Al2O3, MgO, CaO, SrO, BaO, Sc2O3, Y2O3, La2O3, Ga2O3, and GeO2”). Ishioka discloses “crystallization peak temperature of the glass” & “stabilization of the glass” (see [0023]). Regarding the limitation further comprising glass and a crystal phase, Ishioka does not explicitly disclose phases, however, phases are an inherent property of the material.
Regarding claim 24, Ishioka discloses the lithium ion conductor of claim 23 and further discloses wherein 35 to 55 mol % of the lithium oxide (Li2O) (see Table 2 describes composition [mol%] & Li2O & describes value of 40 which lies within the claimed range), 5 to 15 mol% of the silicon oxide (SiO2) (see [0077] “SiO2” & “content thereof is preferably more than 0% and 10% or less” & see Table 2 describes SiO2 & composition [mol%] & 6 which lies within the claimed range), 30 to 50 mol% of the boron oxide (B2O3) (see Table 2 describes B2O3 & describes composition [mol%] & 38.5 which lies within the claimed range), 0.1 to 5.0 mol% of the phosphorus oxide (P2O5) (see Table 2 describes P2O5 & composition [mol%] & 0.5 which lies within the claimed range), 0.1 to 5.0 mol% of the germanium oxide (GeO2), 0.1 to 10 mol% of the aluminum oxide (Al2O3) (see [0078] “additional component other than (LiCl)2, Li2O, B2O3, P2O5, and SiO2. The content of the additional component is 10% or less, preferably 8% or less, and more preferably 6% or less. Stability of the glass can be obtained by keeping the content of the additional component to the small amount” & “Al2O3” & “GeO2” & 6% or less overlaps the claimed ranges), and 0.5 to 10 mol% of the lithium halide (Li-X) are included based on 100 mol% of the total glass (see [0074] “(LiCl)2 in the seventh glass is more than 0% and 30% or less” which overlaps the claimed range of 0.5 to 10 mol% of the lithium halide).
Regarding claim 27, Ishioka discloses the lithium ion conductor of claim 21 and further discloses wherein the lithium ion conductor has room-temperature (20°C) ionic conductivity of greater than or equal to 1.0x10-5 [siemens/cm] (see [0091] “The glass of the present invention has a sufficiently high ion conductivity” & describes ion conductivity is “particularly preferably 1.0×10−6 S/cm or more” which overlaps the claimed range & see [0092] In this description, the ion conductivity is a value obtained by AC impedance measurement at room temperature (from 20° C. to 25° C.).
Ishioka discloses a range of 1.0×10−6 S/cm or more, which overlaps with the claimed range of greater than or equal to 1.0x10-5 [siemens/cm]. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishioka et al. (US 20190177207 A1, “Ishioka”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Okuno et al. (WO 2021193204 A1, “Okuno”, US 20230018477 A1 used herein for citation purposes) and evidenced by Shizuka et al. (US 20110003200 A1, “Shizuka”).
Regarding claim 11, Ishioka discloses the lithium ion conductor of claim 1 and further discloses “glass obtained is completely amorphous. That is, the degree of crystallinity is 0%” (see [0096]). Ishioka does not explicitly disclose wherein the lithium ion conductor has a crystallinity of greater than or equal to 70% calculated by Equation 1: [Equation 1] Crystallinity (%) = [Ic/(Ic+Ia)]x100 wherein, in Equation 1, Ic is a sum of integrated values of scattering intensities of crystalline peaks in the X-ray diffraction analysis spectrum of the lithium ion conductor, and Ia is a sum of integral values of scattering intensities of amorphous halo in the X-ray diffraction analysis spectrum of the lithium ion conductor, however, crystallinity is an inherent material property.
Shizuka provides evidence in [0102] “X-ray diffractometry by using CuKα rays” & in [0103] “integrated intensity of heterogeneous phase peaks to that of the diffraction peak of each intrinsic crystal phase”. Shizuka teaches in [0262] “good battery performance was exhibit in the case where the value of the full width at half maximum of a (110) diffraction peak present at a diffraction angle 20 in the vicinity of 64.5° was within a specific range” & there appears to be a typo and should read 20 should read 2θ.
Ishioka and Shizuka are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely lithium secondary battery (see Shizuka abstract) & safety (see Shizuka [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that good battery performance occurs when the value of the FWHM diffraction peak present at a diffraction angle 2θ in the vicinity of 64.5° was within a specific range as evidenced by Shizuka (see Shizuka [0262]).
Okuno teaches in [0111] “from the viewpoint that the effect of the present invention is more excellent, the proportion of a full width at half maximum of a peak in which a chemical shift appears in a range of −100 to +100 ppm in a spectrum obtained in a case where a solid 7Li-NMR measurement of the second lithium compound is carried out at 120° C. is preferably 70% or less” which overlaps the claimed range at 70%. Okuno teaches in [0043] “thus it is possible to easily obtain a lithium ion conductor having a low void ratio and exhibiting good lithium ion conductivity”.
Ishioka and Okuno are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely lithium ion conductor (see Okuno title) & good lithium ion conductivity (see Okuno abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Okuno to include crystallinity of 70% as suggested by Okuno (see [0111]) into the lithium ion conductor of Ishioka because doing so improves the ion conductivity as suggested by Okuno (see [0043]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishioka et al. (US 20190177207 A1, “Ishioka”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Okuno et al. (WO 2021193204 A1, “Okuno”, US 20230018477 A1 used herein for citation purposes).
Regarding claim 12, Ishioka discloses the lithium ion conductor of claim 1 and further discloses in [0088] “high-density circuit substrate”. Ishioka does not explicitly disclose wherein the lithium ion conductor has an apparent density of 2.0 to 2.4 g/cm3, however, density is an inherent property of the material.
Okuno teaches in [0347] “density of the second lithium compound to 2.3 g/ml” which lies within the claimed range. A skilled artisan would find it obvious that g/ml is equivalent to g/cm3.
Okuno teaches a range of 2.3 g/ml, which lies within the claimed range of 2.0 to 2.4 g/cm3. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishioka et al. (US 20190177207 A1, “Ishioka”) in view of Tezuka et al. (Tezuka et al. Synthesis and characterization of lithium-ion-conductive glass-ceramics…) as applied to claim 24 above, and in further view of Shizuka et al. (US 20110003200 A1, “Shizuka”).
Regarding claim 25, Ishioka discloses the lithium ion conductor of claim 24. Ishioka does not explicitly disclose wherein an average grain size of the crystal phase of the lithium ion conductor is 0.5 µm to 2.0 µm, however, crystal phase is an inherent property.
Shizuka teaches grain size (see [0081] “it is preferable that median sizes measured with a laser diffraction/scattering grain size distribution measuring apparatus after 5 minutes of ultrasonic dispersion (output 30 W, frequency 22.5 kHz), where the refractive index is set at 1.24 and the reference of grain size is on a volume basis, are 2 µm or more, and 8 µm or less.”).
Ishioka and Shizuka are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely lithium secondary battery (see Shizuka title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate grain size of 2 µm or more & 8 µm or less as suggested by Shizuka (see [0081]) into the lithium ion conductor of Ishioka because doing so is preferable as suggested by Shizuka (see [0081]).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishioka et al. (US 20190177207 A1, “Ishioka”) in view of Tezuka et al. (Tezuka et al. Synthesis and characterization of lithium-ion-conductive glass-ceramics…) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Okuno et al. (WO 2021193204 A1, “Okuno”, US 20230018477 A1 used herein for citation purposes) and evidenced by Shizuka et al. (US 20110003200 A1, “Shizuka”).
Regarding claim 26, modified Ishioka discloses the lithium ion conductor of claim 21 and further discloses “glass obtained is completely amorphous. That is, the degree of crystallinity is 0%” (see [0096]). Ishioka does not explicitly disclose wherein the lithium ion conductor has a crystallinity of greater than or equal to 70% calculated by Equation 1: [Equation 1] Crystallinity (%) = [Ic/(Ic+Ia)]x100 wherein, in Equation 1, Ic is a sum of integrated values of scattering intensities of crystalline peaks in the X-ray diffraction analysis spectrum of the lithium ion conductor, and Ia is a sum of integral values of scattering intensities of amorphous halo in the X-ray diffraction analysis spectrum of the lithium ion conductor, however, crystallinity is an inherent material property.
Shizuka provides evidence in [0102] “X-ray diffractometry by using CuKα rays” & in [0103] “integrated intensity of heterogeneous phase peaks to that of the diffraction peak of each intrinsic crystal phase”. Shizuka teaches in [0262] “good battery performance was exhibit in the case where the value of the full width at half maximum of a (110) diffraction peak present at a diffraction angle 20 in the vicinity of 64.5° was within a specific range” & there appears to be a typo and should read 20 should read 2θ.
Ishioka and Shizuka are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely lithium secondary battery (see Shizuka abstract) & safety (see Shizuka [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that good battery performance occurs when the value of the FWHM diffraction peak present at a diffraction angle 2θ in the vicinity of 64.5° was within a specific range as evidenced by Shizuka (see Shizuka [0262]).
Okuno teaches in [0111] “from the viewpoint that the effect of the present invention is more excellent, the proportion of a full width at half maximum of a peak in which a chemical shift appears in a range of −100 to +100 ppm in a spectrum obtained in a case where a solid 7Li-NMR measurement of the second lithium compound is carried out at 120° C. is preferably 70% or less” which overlaps the claimed range at 70%. Okuno teaches in [0043] “thus it is possible to easily obtain a lithium ion conductor having a low void ratio and exhibiting good lithium ion conductivity”.
Ishioka and Okuno are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely lithium ion conductor (see Okuno title) & good lithium ion conductivity (see Okuno abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Okuno to include crystallinity of 70% as suggested by Okuno (see [0111]) into the lithium ion conductor of Ishioka because doing so improves the ion conductivity as suggested by Okuno (see [0043]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 10/12/2026
Prosecution Insights