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 .
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 1-15 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.
The beginning of claim 1 states that the solid electrolyte comprises one or more transition metal elements selected from the group consisting of Co, Ni, and Mn. However, the chemical composition represented by (I) is not described to contain the aforementioned transition metal elements of Co, Ni, Mn and Fe.
Furthermore, the instant specification states examples of the transition element capable of providing six-coordination with oxygen, however, these examples do not include Co, Ni, Mn, and Fe.
Clarification is needed regarding how the transition metal elements of Co, Ni, and Mn, fit / are related to the formula represented by (I).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 4-6, 8-9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto (US 20180102571 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sakamoto teaches a solid electrolyte ceramic having a garnet-type crystal structure, the solid electrolyte ceramic comprising: at least Li, La, Bi, and O; and one or more transition metal elements selected from the group consisting of Co, Ni, and Mn, (Sakamoto, claim 6, A in LiuRevMwAxOy can be Co, Mn, and Ni) the solid electrolyte ceramic having a chemical composition represented by:
AάBβDɣOω (I) (Sakamoto, claim 6)
wherein A is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of the Li and includes at least the Li (Sakamoto, claim 6, [Li in LiuRevMwAxOy]
B is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of the La and lanthanoid elements, and includes at least the La, (Sakamoto, claim 6, [Re can be any combination of elements … including La, Nd, Pr, Pm, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, and Lu])
D is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of a transition element capable of providing six-coordination with oxygen (Sakamoto, claim 6, [M can be Zr, Ta, Nb, W, and Hf])
and an element belonging to Groups 12 to 15 (Sakamoto, claim 6, [M can be Ge, Sn, Sb, and Bi])
5.0 ≤ ά ≤ 8.0 (Sakamoto, claim 6, [u can vary from 3-7.5])
2.5 ≤ β ≤ 3.5 (Sakamoto, claim 6, [v can vary from 0 – 3])
1.5 ≤ ɣ ≤ 2.5 (Sakamoto, claim 6, [w can vary from 0-2])
11 ≤ ω ≤ 13 (Sakamoto, claim 6, [y can vary from 11-12.5])
(Sakamoto, claim 6, Sakamoto teaches the following ranges below,
LiuRevMwAxOy
Li = Li u can vary from 3-7.5
Re = La v can vary from 0-3
M = Zr + Ta + Bi w can vary from 0-2
A = Co x can vary from 0-2
O = O y can vary from 11 – 12.5
it would be reasonable to result in a composition including Li6.3La3Zr1.28Ta0.42Bi0.3O12-Co0.05 which is equivalent to example 1 of the instant, Table 1)
As the ranges of Sakamoto are given, it would be reasonable to result in a composition including Li6.3La3Zr1.28Ta0.42Bi0.3O12-Co0.05 as all of the elements and values are within the allowable range presented by Sakamoto and would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in view of routine experimentation and the optimization or ranges, see MPEP 2144.05. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Therefore, modified Sakamoto teaches wherein, when a content of the B is 100 mol%, a content of the Ta is designated as X (mol%), and a total content of the transition metal elements is designated as Y (mol%), the solid electrolyte ceramic satisfies any one of relational expressions (1) to (3):
0.01 ≤ Y ≤ 4.00 in a range of 12.0 ≤ X < 20.0
0.01 ≤ Y ≤ 6.00 in a range of 20.0 ≤ X < 33.0
0.01 ≤ Y ≤ 8.00 in a range of 33.0 ≤ X ≤ 65.5
Regarding claim 2, modified Sakamoto teaches the solid electrolyte ceramic according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein:
5.0 ≤ ά ≤ 7.0 (Sakamoto, claim 6, [u can vary from 3-7.5])
2.5 ≤ β ≤ 3.3 (Sakamoto, claim 6, [v can vary from 0 – 3])
1.8 ≤ ɣ ≤ 2.5 (Sakamoto, claim 6, [w can vary from 0-2])
11 ≤ ω ≤ 12.5 (Sakamoto, claim 6, [y can vary from 11-12.5])
Regarding claim 4, modified Sakamoto teaches the solid electrolyte ceramic according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein, when the content of the D is 100 mol%, the content of the Bi is 25 mol% or less
(modified Sakamoto, For compound, Li6.3La3Zr1.28Ta0.42Bi0.3O12-Co0.05 ,
D = 1.28 (Zr) + 0.42 (Ta) + 0.05 (Co) = 1.75 and Bi = 0.3
when D = 1.75 and Bi is 0.3, then Bi mol% when D is 100 mol% equates to
0.3
1.33
= 17.1 mol %).
Regarding claim 5, modified Sakamoto teaches the solid electrolyte ceramic according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the one or more transition metal elements includes Co (Sakamoto, claim 6, [A can be Co]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Sakamoto teaches the solid electrolyte ceramic according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the D further comprises Nb as an additional transition metal element. (Sakamoto, claim 6, [M can be Nb]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Sakamoto teaches the solid electrolyte ceramic according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the solid electrolyte ceramic satisfies the relational expressions (1) or (2) (as explained in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 9, modified Sakamoto teaches the solid electrolyte ceramic according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the solid electrolyte ceramic satisfies the relational expression (1) (as explained in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 11, modified Sakamoto teaches the solid electrolyte ceramic according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the chemical composition of the solid electrolyte ceramic is at least one of:
Li6.3La3Zr1.28Ta0.42Bi0.3O12-Co0.05 (see claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 12, modified Sakamoto teaches a solid-state battery comprising the solid electrolyte ceramic according to claim 1 (para. 0226, the solid-state battery including the solid electrolyte ceramic of the present invention can be used in various fields where battery use or power storage is assumed]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Sakamoto teaches the solid-state battery according to claim 12, wherein the solid-state battery includes a positive electrode layer (Fig. 1, [cathode-item 14]), a negative electrode layer (Fig. 1, [anode – item 18]), and a solid electrolyte layer stacked between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer (Fig. 1, [solid electrolyte – item 16] is stacked between the cathode and anode), and the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer are layers capable of occluding and releasing lithium ions (para. 0048 – cathode layer and para. 0050 – anode layer, [suitable active material … capable of storing … and releasing lithium ions).
Regarding claim 14, modified Sakamoto teaches the solid-state battery according to claim 13, and further teaches wherein the solid electrolyte layer and the positive electrode layer (para. 0106, describes the preparation of the cathode and the garnet solid electrolyte. The composite [cathode and electrolyte] is a sintered body.), and the solid electrolyte layer and the negative electrode layer are integrally sintered bodies (para. 0098 teaches that the electrochemical device can be formed by layering the host material, solid state electrolyte, and a second lithium host material to form a layered structure. It then teaches that the layered structure is then sintered to form the electrochemical device]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Sakamoto teaches the solid-state battery according to claim 12, and further teaches wherein the solid electrolyte ceramic is contained in the solid electrolyte layer of the solid-state battery (para. 0226, the solid-state battery including the solid electrolyte ceramic of the present invention can be used in various fields where battery use or power storage is assumed]) (para. 0051 explains that the solid electrolyte material as described above in claim 1 is represented by item 16 of Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection , the explanation in the remarks still does not address how the Markush group of Co, Ni, and Mn, are related to Formula (I) as presented in claim 1. Clarification is required.
Regarding the argument that the “claimed compositions are not merely an optimization of the amount of Co or another first transition metal element”:
One of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the composition cited in claim 1, given that Sakamoto provides the possible elements and atomic ranges for the chemical structure, which includes the claimed amounts.
Regarding the arguments that:
“the X-Y relationship is not mere optimization but technically important and provides the basis for achieving both good ionic conductivity” . and therefore
“A POSA would arrive at numerous compositions that lack the improved properties associated with the smaller subgenus of compositions presently claimed”
While it is agreed that one skilled in the art would arrive at numerous compositions, the prior art (Sakamoto) teaches the chemical composition structure. One skilled in the art would arrive at numerous compositions, with one being that of the composition noted in claim 1 above.
“Applicants have discovered a critical sub-region within a broad compositional space where both acceptable ionic conductivity and suppressed electron conductivity can be achieved”
The features of ionic conductivity as explained in the specification, particularly in para. 0218 – 0221, is not a feature found in claim 1. This feature is not taught by Sakamoto.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 VERITA E GRANNUM whose telephone number is (571)270-1150. The examiner can normally be reached 10-5 EST / 7-2 PST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/V.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights