DETAILED ACTION
The claims 119-138 are pending and presented for the examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/23/2025, 06/04/2025, 07/07/2025, 09/22/2025, 10/02/2025, and 06/08/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 119 and 123 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kintaka (US 20140186720 A1).
Regarding claims 119 and 123, Kintaka teaches a material for a solid electrolyte comprising lithium-lanthanum aluminum garnet having the formula Li7La3Zr2O12 (see Abstract). This garnet component therefore meets the compositional limitations of the formula of the instant claims. Kintaka further teaches an instant wherein a ceramic is formed comprising said Li7La3Zr2O12 garnet along with a La2ZrO3 component (see Table 1). This composition meets each limitation of the instant claims 119 and 123, and the claims are therefore anticipated by the prior art to Kintaka.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 119-120, 126-128, 130, and 132-136 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holme et al (US 2015/0099190).
Regarding claim 119, Holme et al teaches a garnet material represented by the formula LiALaBM’CM”DZrEOF, wherein A is 4-8.5, B is 1.5-4, F is 10-13, and C, D, and E are each 0-2 (see claim 1). The lithium-stuffed garnet taught by Holme is therefore compositionally equivalent to the stuffed garnet component of the instantly claimed composition. Holme et al teaches that the inventive garnet material can be shaped by combining with a flux in a slurry (see paragraph 0289), wherein said flux can include Li2O (see paragraph 0285). An embodiment of Holme et al wherein a further component is comprised that is among those of the list of the instant claim is therefore taught by routine optimization and experimentation with the teachings of the prior art of record. Holme et al therefore teaches a composition comprising at least two materials selected from those of instant claim 119 wherein one is the lithium-stuffed garnet, each limitation of the claim is met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is thus obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 120, Holme et al teaches that the inventive garnet can be present in a slurry for casting, along with a binder component and a plasticizer component (see paragraphs 0516-0517), with an embodiment taught comprising 5 wt% plasticizer (see paragraph 0525). Holme teaches that the binder can be an acrylic binder (see paragraph 0113). Each limitation of instant claim 120 is therefore met by the teachings of Holme et al, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 126, Holme et al teaches a slurry comprising binder in an amount that rounds to 5 wt% (see paragraph 0532). As the claimed content is given with only one significant figure, this is the proper manner of determining the binder content of the Holme et al composition in comparison to that of the instant claim. The further limitation of claim 126 is therefore met by the Holme et al teachings.
Regarding claim 127, Holme et al teaches an embodiment wherein the binder content is 2 wt% (see paragraph 0537).
Regarding claim 128, Holme et al teaches dibutyl phthalate as a plasticizer (see paragraph 0517).
Regarding claims 130 and 132, Holme et al teaches polymethyl methacrylate binders (see paragraph 0113).
Regarding claims 133-136, Holme et al teaches a solvent that can be isopropanol can be included in the inventive slurry (see paragraph 0524).
Claim 137 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holme et al (US 2015/0099190) in view of Sakamoto (US 20130344416 A1).
Regarding claim 137, the claim differs from Holme et al as applied above because Holme et al does not teach a butanol solvent used in the inventive slurry composition. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant filing to modify Holme et al in view of Sakamoto et al in order to use a butanol solvent as taught therein. Sakamoto et al teaches a method of making a lithium-lanthanum aluminum garnet material that meets the compositional limitations of the garnet component of the instant claims (see Abstract). In the process, Sakamoto et al uses a solvent component (see claim 1) that can be selected as isopropanol or butanol, among other similar organic solvents (see claim 6). This teaching indicates that isopropanol and butanol are equivalent solvents when used in preparation of garnet materials of the type taught by both Holme et al and Sakamoto. Therefore, in view of this teaching, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the choice of butanol or isopropanol would be a matter of using an equivalent solvent in order to achieve equivalent and expected results. Motivation for using one solvent or the other would thus come from factors such as material cost and availability. The further limitation of instant claim 137 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
12. Claim 138 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holme et al (US 2015/0099190) in view of Pan et al (US 8283843 B2).
Regarding claim 138, the claim differs from Holme et al as applied above because Holme et al does not teach a xylene solvent used in the inventive slurry composition. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant filing to modify Holme et al in view of Pan et al in order to use a xylene solvent as taught therein. Pan et al teaches a method of making a ceramic laminate comprising a garnet material (see claim 9) that is an aluminate garnet (see column 14, lines 1-5). In the process, Pan et al uses a solvent component (see claim 24) that can be selected as isopropanol or xylene, among other similar organic solvents (see column 15, lines 26-33). This teaching indicates that isopropanol and xylene are equivalent solvents when used in preparation of garnet materials of the type taught by both Holme et al and Pan et al. Therefore, in view of this teaching, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the choice of butanol or isopropanol would be a matter of using an equivalent solvent in order to achieve equivalent and expected results. Motivation for using one solvent or the other would thus come from factors such as material cost and availability. The further limitation of instant claim 138 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 121-122, 124-125, 129, 131 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. The prior art, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest a composition meeting each limitation of instant claim 119, and wherein the composition comprises at least three materials selected from those of instant claim 121 or at least four materials selected from those of instant claim 122. The prior art also does not teach or suggest a composition meeting each limitation of instant claim 120, and wherein the acrylic binder component is methyl methacrylate and ethyl methacrylate in combination, or is ethyl methacrylate.
Conclusion
14. Claims 119-120, 123, 126-128, 130, and 132-138 are rejected. Claims 121-122, 124-125, 129, 131 are objected to.
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW13 October 2026
