DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 4/27/2026 is entered and fully considered.
In view of the amendment most of the 112 rejections are removed. Claim 38 still refers to a substrate having a metallic surface when the parent claim already requires a metal onto which the mixture is provided (a metallic surface).
Response to Arguments
Claim 28 was amended to incorporate the limitations from claims 41 which requires the mixture (after mixing of the first flux material with the ceramic powder material) to have a second density 20% greater than the first density. The examiner had previously reasoned that the same change in density is expected when using the same composition of material and heating/sintering at the same temperature. Applicant argues that the claim has been amended to clarify that the change in density occurs during the mixing process and is distinguished from the change in density resulting from the heating process. However, the rejection still teaches mixing preformed garnet-type electrolyte powder with flux material. The same electrolyte powder is the same particle size and the same amount of flux is used. It is reasonable to expect the same density change of the same materials during the mixing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 38 still refers to a substrate having a metallic surface when the parent claim already requires a metal onto which the mixture is provided (a metallic surface). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 28, 31, 33-35, 37-38, 42-44, 50-54, 57 and 58 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over TESHIMA (WO 2012/114193) in view of FUJITA et al. (WO 2011/077964; US 2012/0276439 used as translation).
Regarding claims 28, 33, 37-38, 42, 53, and 54,
TESHIMA teaches a method of producing a garnet-type solid electrolyte [0052]. The source materials for the electrolyte include LiOH or Li2CO3 (flux) [0053], La2O3 [0054], and ZrO2 [0055]. The method generally includes, mixing starting materials (component powders) and heating [0062]. The heating (sintering) occurs at 400 to 1200ºC [0062]. The solid electrolyte can further include a mixture of two or more additional fluxing agents (first fluxing agent) [0056]. In addition, stoichiometric excess of lithium containing compound can also be used as flux [0053]. The fluxing agent has a melting temperature of less than 1,000ºC [0056].
The TESHIMA reference does not teach providing the solid electrolyte in a pre-synthesized form (see 112 rejection above). However, when forming solid electrolytes FUJITA teaches it is known in the art to use precursors to prefabricate the electrolyte and to form an electrolyte powder [0148]. The powder is then redispersed for coating (shaping) [0149]. The reference further teaches that fluxing material can promote sintering by adding to the fluxing agent during synthesis or adding at the time of dispersing synthesized material [0129]. At the time of the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add fluxing material to the synthesized solid electrolyte particles and coat the mixture in order to aid in the sintering of a shaped inorganic solid electrolyte layer. FUJITA further teaches the synthesized particles can have an average diameter of 0.49 µm [0148] which falls within the claimed range.
The combination of TESHIMA and FUJITA teaches mixing a preformed solid electrolyte particle of the same size with fluxing material but does not teach the density of materials before and after mixing. However, the mixing of the same materials is expected to cause the same preformed solid electrolyte to have the same increase in density. The increase in density is a physical property that naturally flows from the combination of materials.
In TESHIMA, the fluxing agent has a melting temperature of less than 1000ºC [0056]. The reference does not expressly teach the flux having a melting temperature of 500-1000ºC. However, the claimed range overlaps the prior art range and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
In TESHIMA, the heating (sintering) occurs at 400 to 1200ºC (for components of solid electrolyte) [0062]. The reference does not expressly teach heating at less than 800ºC. However, the claimed range overlaps the prior art range and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.II.A. Alternatively, FUJITA teaches the preformed solid electrolyte is heated up to 1000°C [0158].
TESHIMA and FUJITA are directed towards the formation of a solid electrolyte which is positioned (provided) between a cathode and anode. The anodes in TESHIMA are made of metals (metallic) [0044] and electrodes are electrically conductive by definition. Similarly the cathodes also include metals [0029].
Regarding claims 31, 43, 44 and 57,
TESHIMA teaches using additional flux that includes sodium and potassium salts such as NaCl and KCl [0056].
Regarding claims 34-35,
TESHIMA teaches the amount of flux used can be 5-91 mass% of the total mass of the composition [0060]. The content range of flux overlaps the claimed range of less than 51% and 15-30% of the solid electrolyte/components. The overlapping range is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claims 50 and 51,
FUJITA teaches when making the solid electrolyte it can be cast onto a carrier substrate [0120] (shaped into a sheet).
Regardign claim 52,
The heating (sintering) occurs at 400 to 1200ºC [0062]. The heating is applied to the composition that includes a first flux.
Regarding claim 58,
TESHIMA teaches washing the heat treated electrolyte and specifically uses water [0064].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 45-49, 55, and 56 are 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.
Claim 45 requires the first and second flux material to be included at a ratio for a eutectic mixture. The examiner was unable to find prior art teaching selection of fluxing materials and adding them in a ratio to create a eutectic mixture. Depending claims 46-49 are allowed by virtue of dependency.
Claims 55 and 56 require that the lithium conducting ceramic powder material to be perovskite, or NASICON, LISICON or Tungsten Bronze. The examiner notes that while these types of lithium conducting ceramic powders are known, the TESHIMA reference uses flux material with a garnet-type electrolyte. It is not clear that substituting a non-garnet electrolyte would use the same flux agent and thereby result in the same density change.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights