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/Restriction
Applicant’s election of Group I, claim(s) 1–6 and 10, in the reply filed on 07/14/26 is acknowledged. Claim(s) 7–9 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse.
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.
Claim 2 and 3 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.
Claim 2 recites “a ratio of an amount of substance of the F to a sum of amounts of substance of anions that form the solid electrolyte material is greater than or equal to 0.50 and less than or equal to 1.0” in lines 1–3. It is unclear what “amounts of substance of anions that form the solid electrolyte material” references given claim 1 only positively requires one anion as a compound comprising Li, Zr, Al, and F (i.e., F would ionize to fluoride), and, thus, it is unclear whether claim 2 is intended to introduce a new anion(s) into the solid electrolyte’s structure.
The specification’s ¶ 0019–0021 describes that the solid electrolyte may contain additional anions such as Cl, Br, I, O, and Se, or F may be the only anion such that the ratio is 1.0. This section merely describes one embodiment, though, and, thus, is non-limiting to claim 2’s anion(s). Thus, for this Office Action claim 2 will be interpreted to only require F such that the ratio of F to total anions may be 1.0, consistent with ¶ 0019–0021.
Dependent claim 3 fails to correct this deficiency and is rejected likewise. 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.
Claim(s) 1–6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaida et al. (WO 2020070956 A1; citation to English equivalent US 20210098825 A1) (Sakaida) in view of Hoshi et al. (WO 2021085239 A1, with citation to English equivalent US 20220416292 A1, both from 01/23/24 IDS) (Hoshi).
Regarding claims 1, 4–6, and 10, Sakaida discloses a battery (Title and, e.g., ¶ 0143) comprising a positive electrode (In foil electrode, ¶ 0145); a negative electrode (Al foil electrode, ¶ 0144; note that Al would be negative electrode in terms of discharge given it possess lower reduction potential than In); and an electrolyte layer disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (¶ 0145), the electrolyte layer comprising a solid electrolyte material comprising Li, Zr, Al, and a halogen (e.g., Table 1, Ex. 1, and ¶ 0145).
Sakaida embodies Li2.07Zr0.82Al0.21Cl6 in Ex. 1 but fails to explicitly disclose Li, Zr, Al, and F in one embodiment.
More broadly, though, Sakaida discloses that the solid electrolyte may be represented by the general formula Li6–4b+ab(Zr1–aMa)bX6, where X is a halogen (¶ 0013–0016), i.e., F, Cl, Br, or I (as seen in ¶ 0067).
As Sakaida recognizes Cl and F as equivalent halogens, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely substitute Sakaida’s Cl in Ex. 1 with F with the reasonable expectation of achieving a successful electrolyte.
However, besides generally desiring high Li+ conductivity (¶ 0020), in being unconcerned with the electrolyte’s specific physical characteristics, Sakaida fails to specify the surface area and, thus, > 3.2 m2/g (claim 1), less than 100 m2/g (claim 4), less than 40 m2/g (claim 5), or greater than or equal to 5.2 m2/g (claim 6).
Hoshi, directed to a pertinent problem-solving area of tuning specific surface area in lithium-halide-based solid electrolytes (Abstract, ¶ 0025), teaches an SSA of preferably 2.0–8 m2/g (¶ 0025). Hoshi teaches that a smaller SSA suppresses increased slurry viscosity during manufacturing, but making the SSA too small reduces Li+ conductivity by reducing the number of contact points (¶ 0025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Sakaida's solid electrolyte, in being solid, must necessarily be incorporated with some surface area, and, as demonstrated by Hoshi, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to employ an SSA of 2.0–8 m2/g. Moreover, to balance suppressed slurry viscosity with sufficient Li+ conductivity, it would have been obvious to arrive at each of the recited ranges by routinely optimizing the SSA, including within the overlap of 2.0–8 m2/g with each of the respective ranges, as taught by Hoshi (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood in light of the above 112(b) issue, modified Sakaida discloses the solid electrolyte material according to claim 1, wherein a ratio of an amount of substance of the F to a sum of amounts of substance of anions that form the solid electrolyte material is 1.0 (i.e., substituting Cl for anion consisting of F in Sakaida’s Ex. 1), falling within 0.50–1.0.
Regarding claim 3, modified Sakaida discloses the solid electrolyte material according to claim 2, wherein the solid electrolyte material is represented by Li2.07Zr0.82Al0.21F6 (Sakaida’s Ex. 1, noting substitution of Cl with F), which satisfies instant Formula 1, where x = 0.21, and b = 1.
Sakaida’s Li value of 2.07 is marginally outside the range implicitly required by instant Formula 1 (i.e., in Formula 1, if x were 0.21 and b were 1, as in Sakaida’s Ex. 1, then Li would = 2.21). However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges fail to overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Here, Sakaida never appears to isolate poor performance to 2.07—or any other value outside the implicitly required Li range—and the instant specification never appears to purport criticality specifically to the Li value. The data of record further support this observation because all examples in instant Table 1 use Li2.8, where the one comparative example is LiBF4 and, thus, a different class of electrolyte. Thus, absent demonstrated criticality isolated to the Li value, the instant Li value appears obvious over Sakaida’s 2.07.
Conclusion
The cited art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20240186572 A1: solid electrolyte of LiaMX6, where 2 ≤ a ≤ 3, M may contain Al and/or Zr, and X may be F.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 8/27/2026
Prosecution Insights