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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/09/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 9 & 15-17 are amended. Claims 2-8 are canceled. Claims 21-22 are newly added. Claims 1 & 9-22 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 & 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minamida (US 2013/0183589 A1).
Regarding claims 1 & 22, Minamida teaches a lithium conductive oxide-based solid electrolyte, after sintering, comprising: a lithium conductive oxide-based particle comprising a LAGP compound comprising PO4 and colored oxide particles comprising an oxide of Mo, wherein the colored oxide particles and the lithium conductive oxide-based particles are in direct surface-to-surface contact with each other.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minamida (US 2013/0183589 A1) and evidenced by Nishida (US 2012/0231350 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Minamida teaches the lithium conductive oxide-based solid electrolyte sheet of claim 1, having a porosity of 5% to 10% ([0083]) but is silent as to an ionic conductivity of 10-6 S/cm to 10-2 S/cm. However, one of ordinary skill in the art readily understands that LAGP compounds are known to have an ionic conductivity in the order to 10-4 S/cm as evidenced by Nishida ([0004]). Accordingly, the lithium conductive oxide-based solid electrolyte sheet of Minamida would inherently have an ionic conductivity of 10-6 S/cm to 10-2 S/cm since it includes the same LAGP compound described in Nishida.
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.
Claims 15, 17 & 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minamida (US 2013/0183589 A1) and evidenced by Nishida (US 2012/0231350 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Minamida teaches the lithium conductive oxide-based solid electrolyte sheet of claim 1 having a thickness of 10 microns to 50 microns ([0083]) but is silent as to an area of at least 0.25 cm2. However, one of ordinary skill in the art readily understands that the capacity of a battery can be increased by increasing the area of the electrodes (and thus increasing the amount of active material that can be provided in the electrodes). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use a lithium conductive oxide-based solid electrolyte sheet having an area of at least 0.25 cm2 in view of attaining high capacities. Notwithstanding, “the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)”. See MPEP 2144.04 IV (A).
Regarding claims 17 & 19-20, Minamida teaches an all-solid lithium secondary battery comprising a solid electrolyte structure comprising a substrate such as a current collector and a lithium conductive oxide-based solid electrolyte sheet, after sintering, present on the substrate ([0195]-[0207]), wherein the lithium conductive oxide-based solid electrolyte sheet comprises a lithium conductive oxide-based particle comprising a LAGP compound (i.e including PO4) and colored oxide particles comprising an oxide of Mo, wherein the colored oxide particles and the lithium conductive oxide-based particles are in direct surface-to-surface contact with each other, and wherein the lithium conductive oxide-based solid electrolyte sheet has a porosity of 5% to 10% and a thickness of 10 microns to 50 microns ([0080], [0083], [0101]-[0117], [0130]-[0132] & [0138]). Minamida is silent as to the lithium conductive oxide-based solid electrolyte sheet having an ionic conductivity of 10-6 S/cm to 10-2 S/cm and an area of at least 0.25 cm2. However, one of ordinary skill in the art readily understands that the capacity of a battery can be increased by increasing the area of the electrodes (and thus increasing the amount of active material that can be provided in the electrodes). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use a lithium conductive oxide-based solid electrolyte sheet having an area of at least 0.25 cm2 in view of attaining high capacities. Notwithstanding, “the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)”. See MPEP 2144.04 IV (A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art readily understands that LAGP compounds are known to have an ionic conductivity in the order to 10-4 S/cm as evidenced by Nishida ([0004]). Accordingly, the lithium conductive oxide-based solid electrolyte sheet of Minamida would inherently have an ionic conductivity of 10-6 S/cm to 10-2 S/cm since it includes the same LAGP compound described in Nishida.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-14, 18 & 21 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record, Minamida, does not fairly teach or suggest the sintering being performed by light sintering (claim 9) and upon energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) analysis of a surface of the lithium conductive oxide-based solid electrolyte sheet, an amount of a binder reside contained in the solid electrolyte sheet being 10 at% to 80 at% (claim 18 & 21).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 & 9-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The subject matter of claims 1, 16 & 22 is found to be anticipated by Minamida with claims 15, 17, 19-20 being found obvious over Minamida.
Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 1, 15, 17, 19-20 & 22 stand rejected and claims 9-14, 18 & 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, BARBARA GILLIAM can be reached on (571)272-1330. 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.
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727