DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/1/2025 is entered and fully considered. Several of the 112 issues are resolved but there is a remaining 112 issue detailed below.
The amendment incorporates claim 40 into independent form but changes the material deposited from the “lithium conducting ceramic powder” to the “mixture” (including the flux). This language now corresponds to claim 39 and is similarly rejected.
The terminal disclaimer is acknowledged and the double patenting rejection is removed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the limitations from claim 40 were not previously rejected and are incorporated into independent form. However, the language from claim 40 was changed when brought into independent form.
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 28-31, 33-35, 37-39, and 41-58 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 28 requires “providing a lithium conducting ceramic powder” in line 2. Claim 29 requires the lithium conducting ceramic powder material to comprise “electrolyte component powders”. The component powders are not lithium conducting and therefore fall outside the scope of “lithium conducting ceramic powder” which creates and indefinite claim set. It is not clear if the claims are directed to a lithium conducting ceramic powder or a component powder that is not (yet) lithium conducting.
For example, claim 30 requires the lithium conducting ceramic powder material to comprise component powders of La2O3 or ZrO2 which are not lithium conducting. The claim requires the lithium conducting ceramic powder to be made of powders that are not lithium conducting. Conversely, claims 54-56 require the lithium conducting material to be materials that can be generally independently lithium conducting. LLZO is garnet type and LLTO would be perovskite solid electrolyte (lithium conducting). Accordingly, when those materials are used, they are already lithium conducting as required in the parent claim.
The lithium conducting powder and electrolyte component powder are two different embodiments that are being conflated in the depending claims which makes the independent claim unclear. The embodiments are mutually exclusive because one embodiment uses a lithium conducting powder while the other uses components of a lithium conducting powder (components are not lithium conducting). Applicant’s specification indicates that synthesized electrolyte powder (lithium conducting) can be mixed with flux [0039] and also teaches components of the ceramic electrolyte being dissolved in flux [0032] or using garnet precursor (component) material [0044].
Claim 28 also now refers to a “metal conductive material”. It is not clear if this is referring to a material that conducts metals (similar to a lithium conductor) or if the claim intends to refer to a metal that is electrically conductive.
Therefore, the examiner maintains that claim 28 requires additional clarity as to what powder material is being mixed with flux.
Claim 39 as amended now contains a typo “the mixture is deposited the substrate”. However, as noted below this claim does not further limit.
Depending claims incorporate the issues of the independent claim and are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 38 and 39 are 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. The limitations for claims 38 and 39 are already incorporated into the independent claim and do not further limit. 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, 37-39, 41-44, 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 28-30, 33, 37-39, 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.
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 41 and 42,
Modified TESHIMA teaches the same process but does not measure the density before and after the heating. However, the same materials heat treated to the same temperature are expected to have the same change in density.
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].
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 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