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.
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 1-4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (US 2022/0246983 in view of Sakamoto et al (US 2018/0102571).
With respect to claims 1-3, Suzuki discloses a solid electrolyte material comprising Li, Zr, Y, Cl, and O (Abstract; Table 6, Examples 37-42), wherein a composition of an entirety of the solid electrolyte material is taught by Formula (1) of: A2+aE1-b+aGbDcXd, with 0≤b≤0.5; -0.3≤a≤0.3; 0.01≤c≤3; 0.1≤d≤6.1, and “G” is Y (yttrium) and “D” is O (oxygen) (para 0057-0058; Table 6), suggesting a molar ratio of O:Y of about 0.02-0.2 in the entirety of the solid electrolyte material when “b” is selected at either 0.05 or 0.5 and “c” is selected at 0.01 (Table 6, Examples 36-42: NOTE: Table 6 appears to have a discrepancy between Examples 36 and 42, where Example 36 may or may not contain Sb instead of Y and Example 42 may or may not contain Al instead of Y).
However Suzuki is limited in that a molar ratio of O:Y in a surface region of the solid electrolyte material being ten times greater than the molar ratio of O:Y in the entirety of the solid electrolyte material is not specifically suggested.
Sakamoto teaches a solid electrolyte material comprising Li, Zr, Y, and O (para 0012 and 0051-0053), similar to the solid electrolyte material of Suzuki. Sakamoto further teaches applying a stabilization coating of a metal oxide to an “external surface” or interface of the solid electrolyte material (Abstract; para 0012 and 0077-0084), wherein the metal oxide is yttrium oxide (Y2O3) (para 0025, 0029, and 0041); Y2O3 has a molar ratio of O:Y of 1.5:1. Sakamoto cites the advantage of the stabilization coating on the solid electrolyte material as stabilizing interfaces between active material, solid electrolyte, and current collector to prevent undesirable changes in electrochemical properties (para 0012 and 0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to apply the stabilization coating of Y2O3 taught by Sakamoto to the surface region of the solid electrolyte material of Suzuki to gain the advantage of preventing undesirable changes in electrochemical properties.
In summary, the combination of references Suzuki and Sakamoto has: Suzuki teaching the molar ratio of O:Y of about 0.02-0.2 in the entirety of the solid electrolyte material; and Sakamoto teaching the surface region of the solid electrolyte material has the molar ratio of O:Y of 1.5; wherein the molar ratio of 1.5 is the claimed “ten times or more” of at least the lower value of 0.02 (and values therebetween for the 0.02-0.2) for the molar ratio of O:Y in the entirety of the solid electrolyte material.
With respect to claim 4, modified Suzuki further discloses the solid electrolyte material includes at least one of Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Al, Sc, Bi, La, Sm, Hf, Ta, and Nb (para 0056-, 0060-0061, 0063-0064, and 0066.
With respect to claims 6 and 7, as discussed above for claim 1, modified Suzuki teaches the solid electrolyte material. Suzuki further discloses a method of making the solid electrolyte material at para 0088-0098, similar to the method taught in Applicant’s Specification para 0036-0040. Since modified Suzuki teaches the claim requirements of the solid electrolyte material and the method of making the solid electrolyte material similar to Applicant, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established that modified Suzuki also teaches the resulting solid electrolyte material having properties (when an X-ray diffraction pattern is obtained by X-ray diffraction measurement using Cu-Ka) of including “a peak within each of diffraction angle 2θ ranges of greater than or equal to 15.5° and less than or equal to 15.7°, greater than or equal to 16.6° and less than or equal to 16.8°, greater than or equal to 17.4° and less than or equal to 17.6°, greater than or equal to 20.1° and less than or equal to 20.3°, greater than or equal to 22.2°and less than or equal to 22.4°, greater than or equal to 31.4° and less than or equal to 31.6°, and greater than or equal to 48.9° and less than or equal to 49.1°” (claim 6) and “a peak within a diffraction angle 2θ range of greater than or equal to 47.0° and less than or equal to 47.2°” (claim 7) (MPEP 2112.01, I).
With respect to claim 8, modified Suzuki discloses the composition of an entirety of the solid electrolyte material is taught by Formula (1) of: A2+aE1-b+aGbDcXd, with 0≤b≤0.5; -0.3≤a≤0.3; 0.01≤c≤3; 0.1≤d≤6.1, and “G” is Y (yttrium), “D” is O (oxygen), “A” is Li (lithium), “E” is Zr (zirconium), and “X” is Cl (chlorine) (para 0057-0058; Table 6); it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges (i.e. molar ratios of Li:Y is 4.4-5.5, Zr:Y is 0.8, and Cl:Y is 8.6-12.3) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (as per Formula (1)), a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I).
With respect to claim 9, modified Suzuki further discloses in fig. 1 a battery [10] comprising a positive electrode [1], a negative electrode [2], and a solid electrolyte [3] therebetween, wherein the solid electrolyte [3] comprises the solid electrolyte material (para 0099-0101).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on p. 5-13 filed 7/21/2026 are addressed below.
Double Patenting Rejections
Terminal Disclaimers were filed and approved on 7/21/2026 over copending applications 18/452117 and 18/452095; the previous rejection have been withdrawn.
Terminal Disclaimer was filed and approved on 7/27/2026 over US 12308383; the previous rejections have been withdrawn.
103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments on p. 5-13 with respect to amended claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references Suzuki and Sakamoto being applied in the current rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MICHAEL A BAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm EST.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/MICHAEL A BAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights