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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 29 May 2026 and 01 September 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kbala et al. (“Étude De La Conductivité Ionique De Nouveaux Borates Doubles De Type Li6-xLn1-xTx(BO3)3 (Ln=terre rare, T=éléement tetravalent),” 6(2) Solid State Ionics 191-194 (1982), hereinafter, Kbala).
Regarding claim 1, Kbala teaches a formulation Li6-xLn1-xTx(BO3)3 with Ln being Yb, Ho, Y, Dy, Sm, or Nd and T being Zr or Th and 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.1 (Abstract). The formula of the instant application is Li6-y-zY1-x-y-zMxZryCezB3O9, wherein M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of La, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, and Lu; and x, y, and z are real numbers satisfying 0.005≤x≤0.800, 0.010≤y≤0.400, 0.000≤z≤0.400, and 0.005≤x+y+z≤1.000. By selecting T = Zr and x = 0.1 for the formulation of Kbala, and y = 0.1 and z = 0 for the instant formulation, the formulation of Kbala becomes Li5.9Ln0.9Zr0.1(BO3)3 and the instant formulation becomes Li5.9Y0.9-xMxZr0.1B3O9. Further, by selecting two elements in place of Ln in the formulation of Kbala for Ln, namely Y and any other option listed (Yb, Ho, Dy, Sm, or Nd), and by selecting M as one of the same five elements as claimed (Yb, Ho, Dy, Sm, Nd), both formulations may overlap. In the case that the second element for Ln in the formulation of Kbala is Yb and the split was 5:1 Y to Yb, and the x of the instant formulation was x = 0.150, the formulation could be exemplified as Li5.9Y0.75Yb0.15Zr0.1B3O9. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to choose two elements in place of Ln in the formulation of Kbala since they both occupy the same position in the formulation. This is considered a combination of conventionally known elements to form a conventionally known borate and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, in the case that the ratio of elements chosen for the Ln position for the formulation of Kbala were selected as Y = 0.75 and Yb = 0.15, x would correspond to the coefficient of Yb and the claimed limitation of 0.010≤x≤0.800 would be met.
Regarding claim 3, in the case that the ratio of elements chosen for the Ln position for the formulation of Kbala were selected as Y = 0.75 and Yb = 0.15, x would correspond to the coefficient of Yb and the claimed limitation of 0.010≤x≤0.400 would be met.
Regarding claim 4, in the case that the ratio of elements chosen for the Ln position for the formulation of Kbala were selected as Y = 0.75 and Yb = 0.15, x would correspond to the coefficient of Yb and the claimed limitation of 0.010≤x≤0.200 would be met.
Regarding claim 5, in the case that the ratio of elements chosen for the Ln position for the formulation of Kbala were selected as Y = 0.75 and Yb = 0.15, x would correspond to the coefficient of Yb, z = 0, and y = 0.1, x+y+z = 0.25, and the claimed limitation of 0.010≤x+y+z≤0.900 would be met.
Regarding claim 6, in the case that the ratio of elements chosen for the Ln position for the formulation of Kbala were selected as Y = 0.75 and Yb = 0.15, x would correspond to the coefficient of Yb, z = 0, and y = 0.1, x+y+z = 0.25, and the claimed limitation of 0.010≤x+y+z≤0.400 would be met.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kbala (“Étude De La Conductivité Ionique De Nouveaux Borates Doubles De Type Li6-xLn1-xTx(BO3)3 (Ln=terre rare, T=éléement tetravalent),” 6(2) Solid State Ionics 191-194 (1982)) in view of Lopez-Bermudez (“Lithium-ion conductivity in Li6Y(BO3)3: a thermally and electrochemically robust solid electrolyte”. Journal of Materials Chemistry A, 2016, 4, 6972-6979-previously cited) in further view of Murakami (US20200058939-previously cited).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Kbala teaches the ionic formulation of claim 1, but does not teach an all-solid-state battery comprising at least a positive electrode, negative electrode, and electrolyte wherein the electrolyte comprises the ion-conductive solid. In related field of endeavor, Lopez-Bermudez teaches the usage of Li6Y(BO3)3 as an electrolyte in all-solid-state batteries (Introduction) because of the thermal and electrochemical stability, and that aliovalent substitutions could lead to improved ionic conductivities (Conclusion), such as the substitution of zirconium of Kbala, but does not teach an all-solid-state battery comprising at least a positive electrode, negative electrode, and electrolyte. In a further related field of endeavor, Murakami teaches an all-solid-state battery comprising at least a positive electrode, negative electrode, and electrolyte (Abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to use the ionic formulation of Kbala in the all-solid-state battery of Murakami because of the improved ionic conductivity and thermal and electrochemical stability stated by Lopez-Bermudez.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks pages 4-5, filed 22 July 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Pan, Lopez-Bermudez, and Murakami have been fully considered and are persuasive. Pan does not teach the presence of zirconium in the oxide. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kbala, Lopez-Bermudez, and Murakami as outlined above.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks pages 5-6, filed 22 July 2026, with respect to claims 1 and 7-8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1 and 7-8 have been withdrawn.
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 FANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 10:00am-6:00pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/M.F./ Examiner, Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784
