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 1-12 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.
Regarding claim 1, the instant application uses the terminology “the one or more transition elements” when defining Y but there are two points where transition elements are invoked, once regarding the transition element dopants of Co, Ni, Mn, and Fe and another time regarding the transition elements of D. For the purposes of examination, “the one or more transition elements” is referring to the dopants of Co, Ni, Mn, or Fe present in the electrolyte. Further, the claim requires one or more transition metal elements selected from the group consisting of Co, Ni, Mn, and Fe. The claim then says the solid electrolyte having a chemical composition represented by ABDO (I); however, none of the variables ABDO encompass the transition metal elements. Thus, the claim is not clear. “Represented by” does not appear to be open to additional elements. For the purposes of examination, it is being interpreted that there are at least trace amounts of the one or more transition metal elements.
Claims 2-12 depend upon claim 1 and do not resolve the indefiniteness above, so they are also rejected.
Regarding claim 7, the instant application uses the terminology “the one or more transition elements” but it is unclear which set of transition metals it is referring to in the same manner as described regarding claim 1 above. For the purposes of examination, “the one or more transition elements” is referring to the dopants of Co, Ni, Mn, or Fe present in the electrolyte.
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).
Conclusion
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