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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 7, and 8 have been amended and the 112 (b) rejections previously set forth regarding claims 1 and 7 have been overcome and are withdrawn in light of the applicant’s amendment.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto et al. (US 10854930 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Sakamoto teaches a composition of a solid-state electrolyte for a lithium battery that can be LiuRevMwAxOy (Sakamoto, Column 7, lines 21-40) this meets the limitation of the claim of the instant application as Li and O are present, Re can be La, M can be a combination of the listed metals, such as Zr, Ta, and Bi, and the dopant A can be Co, the combination of Li, La, Zr, and O is known in the art to be abbreviated as LLZO which Sakamoto describes as a garnet structure (Column 2, lines 34-35). As the ranges of Sakamoto are given, it would be reasonable to result in a composition including Li6.7La3Zr1.3Ta0.4Bi0.24O12Co0.1 as all of the elements and values are within the ranges allowed by Sakamoto and would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in view of routine experimentation and the optimization of 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. This composition is also present in claim 8 and therefore meets all the limitations of claim 1 as claim 8 is dependent upon claim 1 and necessarily limits it.
Regarding claim 2, Sakamoto teaches the solid-state electrolyte of claim 1 as described above and the composition of Li6.7La3Zr1.3Ta0.4Bi0.24O12Co0.1 meets the limitation of claim 2 as all of the values are within the range claimed by the instant application and allowed by Sakamoto.
Regarding claim 3, Sakamoto teaches the solid-state electrolyte of claim 1 as described above and further teaches the composition Li6.7La3Zr1.3Ta0.4Bi0.24O12Co0.1 meets the limitation of claim 3 as bismuth is present.
Regarding claim 4, Sakamoto teaches the solid-state electrolyte of claim 3 as described above and further teaches the composition Li6.7La3Zr1.3Ta0.4Bi0.24O12Co0.1 has a Bi mol content of 8% when B is regarded as 100 mol% which is a value under 33 mol%.
Regarding claim 5, Sakamoto teaches the solid-state electrolyte of claim 1 as described above and further teaches the composition Li6.7La3Zr1.3Ta0.4Bi0.24O12Co0.1 satisfies the relational expression (1) as Y = 3.3 mol% which is within the range of .01-4.0 mol% and X = 227 mol% which is within the range of 221-227 mol% when the content of B is regarded as 100 mol%.
Regarding claim 6, Sakamoto teaches the solid-state electrolyte of claim 1 as described above and further teaches the composition Li6.7La3Zr1.3Ta0.4Bi0.24O12Co0.1 satisfies the relational expression (1) as Y = 3.3 mol% which is within the range of .01-4.0 mol% and X = 227 mol% which is within the range of 221-227 mol% when the content of B is regarded as 100 mol%.
Regarding claim 7, Sakamoto teaches the solid-state electrolyte of claim 1 as described above and further teaches the composition Li6.7La3Zr1.3Ta0.4Bi0.24O12Co0.1 satisfies the limitation as it contains Co.
Regarding claim 8, Sakamoto teaches the solid-state electrolyte of claim 1 as described above and further teaches the composition Li6.7La3Zr1.3Ta0.4Bi0.24O12Co0.1 which is listed as one of the potential compositions of a solid electrolyte ceramic.
Regarding claim 9, Sakamoto teaches the solid-state electrolyte of claim 1 as described above and further teaches the composition can be used in a lithium-ion battery (Page 7, line 21).
Regarding claim 10, Sakamoto teaches the solid-state battery of claim 9 as described above and further teaches that there is a positive electrode and a negative electrode with the solid electrolyte between them and it is a lithium-ion battery (fig. 1, column 6, lines 39-44).
Regarding claim 11, Sakamoto teaches the solid-state battery of claim 10 as described above and further teaches that the constituents of the electrochemical device are sintered and can be connected together (column 10, lines 4-30).
Regarding claim 12, Sakamoto teaches the solid-state battery of claim 9 as described above and further teaches Li6.7La3Zr1.3Ta0.4Bi0.24O12Co0.1 as a suitable material as part of a solid-state electrolyte which is further part of the lithium-ion battery (column 7, lines 21-40).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Sakamoto does not teach the claimed limitation of the values attributed to various elements in view of unexpected results, such as achieving both “excellent ionic conductivity” and “suppression of increase in electronic conductivity” at the same time, and that one of ordinary skill would not have a reasonable expectation of success to achieve both “excellent ionic conductivity” and “suppression of increase in electronic conductivity” at the same time. This argument is unpersuasive because the claimed limitation has significant overlap with the specification of Sakamoto, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and one of ordinary skill would be actively seeking to make their electrolyte have a higher conductivity without shorting the battery as the purpose of an electrolyte is to conduct ions and shorting the battery is actively bad and it would be incongruent to willingly seek a composition that destroys the battery. As discussed in MPEP 716.02.c the evidence of unexpected results must be weighed against the evidence supporting the prima facie case of obviousness.
As discussed in claim 1, an example of a composition is given that is within the range disclosed by Sakamoto and meets all of the limitations of claim 1 in view of being present in claim 8 which is dependent upon claim 1 and therefore necessarily meets its limitations. Further, the argument of unexpected results is not persuasive due to the nature of a gradient of acceptable electron conductivity as described in the instant application by a triangle, a circle, and a double circle. An argument of unexpected results implies that something sudden happens in a particular composition or range of compositions that is not seen anywhere else, but the existence of the gradient implies that there is no such sudden change and it is just a gradual shift of a desired attribute up until a point that the applicant deems “acceptable for practical use”, which, in and of itself, is subjective. As discussed in MPEP 716.02.b the burden is on applicant to establish that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance.
Lastly, the unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. Applicant’s claim 1 describes a content of La and a total content of one or more transition metal elements selected from the group consisting of Co, Ni, Mn and Fe; however, all of applicant’s example compounds and comparative examples in Table 1 use only Co in the compound. The D element in the compound is claimed as one or more elements selected from the group consisting of transition elements capable of six-coordination with oxygen and elements that belong to Groups 12 to 15; however, all of applicant’s example compounds and comparative example compounds in Table 1 utilize Zr, Ta and Bi. As discussed in MPEP 716.02.d the objective evidence of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results cover the entire claimed range.
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 SEAN ROBERT BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-0640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/SEAN R. BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights