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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (KR 10-2018-0076132 A, hereinafter Jung).
Re Claim 1. Jung teaches an electrolyte comprising a compound, the compound represented by Formula 1:
Formula 1 LiwAlxSyOz wherein, in Formula 1, 0<w≤6, 0<x≤6, 0<y≤6, and 0≤z≤6, and wherein the compound is amorphous (Claim 1).
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). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Re Claims 2-4. Jung does not explicitly teach a first/second/third peak nor a ratio of an intensity between the peaks.
However, since Jung and the electrolyte employ substantially similar materials, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (a first/second/third peak and a ratio of an intensity between the peaks) would have naturally flowed following the teachings of Jung. See MPEP 2112.01 & In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2145 & Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985)
When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2112- 2112.02.
Re Claims 5-7. Jung does not explicitly teach a distance between lithium atom and oxygen atom nor a distance between lithium atoms having a certain distance.
However, since Jung and the electrolyte employ substantially similar materials, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (a distance between lithium atom and oxygen atom and a distance between lithium atoms having a certain distance) would have naturally flowed following the teachings of Jung. See MPEP 2112.01 & In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2145 & Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Re Claims 8 and 9. Jung does not explicitly teach that the compound comprises an ionic conductor nor a composition of ionic conductor.
However, since Jung and the electrolyte employ substantially similar materials, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (the compound having an ionic conductor and a composition of ionic conductor) would have naturally flowed following the teachings of Jung. See MPEP 2112.01 & In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2145 & Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Re Claim 10. Jung teaches wherein a lithium atom is randomly disposed within the ionic conductor (inherent to amorphous material).
Re Claim 11. Jung teaches wherein an ionic conductivity of the electrolyte at about 30 °C is greater than or equal to about 1x10-4 Siemens per centimeter (Claim 3), but does not explicitly teach that a lithium diffusion barrier in the electrolyte is less than or equal to about 600 millielectronvolts.
However, since Jung and the electrolyte employ substantially similar materials, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (a lithium diffusion barrier in the electrolyte being less than or equal to about 600 millielectronvolts) would have naturally flowed following the teachings of Jung. See MPEP 2112.01 & In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2145 & Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Re Claim 12. Jung teaches a lithium battery (P8-9) comprising:
a cathode (P8-9);
an anode (P8-9); and
an electrolyte disposed between the cathode and the anode (P8-9),
wherein the cathode, the anode, the electrolyte, or a combination thereof, comprises the electrolyte according to claim 1 (P8-9 and see rejection of Claim 1).
Re Claim 13. Jung teaches wherein the lithium battery is an all-solid-state battery (P8-9).
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasa (WO 2019-239890 A1).
Re Claim 1. Ogasa teaches an electrolyte comprising a compound, the compound represented by Formula 1:
Formula 1 LiwAlxSyO4 wherein, in Formula 1, 2.9≤w≤4.7, 0.3≤x≤0.9, and 0.1≤y≤0.7 (in mol%, 34.1<w<51.6, 0.3<x<11.4, 1<y<8.8, 38.8<O<54.7), and wherein the compound is amorphous (P4, 15<w<36, 0<x<5, 1<y<8, 53<O<65).
Re Claims 2-4. Ogasa does not explicitly teach a first/second/third peak nor a ratio of an intensity between the peaks.
However, since Ogasa and the electrolyte employ substantially similar materials, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (a first/second/third peak and a ratio of an intensity between the peaks) would have naturally flowed following the teachings of Ogasa. See MPEP 2112.01 & In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2145 & Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985)
When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2112- 2112.02.
Re Claims 5-7. Ogasa does not explicitly teach a distance between lithium atom and oxygen atom nor a distance between lithium atoms having a certain distance.
However, since Ogasa and the electrolyte employ substantially similar materials, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (a distance between lithium atom and oxygen atom and a distance between lithium atoms having a certain distance) would have naturally flowed following the teachings of Ogasa. See MPEP 2112.01 & In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2145 & Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Re Claims 8 and 9. Ogasa does not explicitly teach that the compound comprises an ionic conductor nor a composition of ionic conductor.
However, since Ogasa and the electrolyte employ substantially similar materials, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (the compound having an ionic conductor and a composition of ionic conductor) would have naturally flowed following the teachings of Ogasa. See MPEP 2112.01 & In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2145 & Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Re Claim 10. Ogasa teaches wherein a lithium atom is randomly disposed within the ionic conductor (inherent to amorphous material).
Re Claim 11. Ogasa does not explicitly teach an ionic conductivity of the electrolyte nor a lithium diffusion barrier in the electrolyte.
However, since Ogasa and the electrolyte employ substantially similar materials, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (an ionic conductivity of the electrolyte and a lithium diffusion barrier in the electrolyte) would have naturally flowed following the teachings of Ogasa. See MPEP 2112.01 & In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2145 & Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Re Claim 12. Ogasa teaches a lithium battery comprising:
a cathode (P6);
an anode (P4); and
an electrolyte disposed between the cathode and the anode (P3),
wherein the electrolyte (P3), comprises the electrolyte according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1).
Re Claim 13. Ogasa teaches wherein the lithium battery is an all-solid-state battery (P3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8, regarding claim 1, applicant argued that it would be a burden for one skill in the art to pick Al from more than thirty options, O from the seven options, set value 4 for d, and select values of a, b, and c to substantially narrower ranges.
The examiner disagrees with this because using Li-Al-S-O for an amorphous solid electrolyte is known in the art (see para. 26 of Matsuyama, US 2022/0173431 A1). Therefore, there would not be a burden for one skill in the art to pick Al and O from the options given by Jung. In addition, values for a, b, c, and d overlaps with the claimed ranges. Therefore, it is a prima facie case of obviousness.
On page 10, regarding claim 1, applicant argued that Ogasa does not teach the claimed formula 1 because P2O5 is essential to Ogasa for making the electrolyte amorphous.
The examiner disagrees with this because the claimed formula 1 does not preclude having P2O5, since the claim employs open ended transitional phrase, "comprising".
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.
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
9/23/2026
Prosecution Insights