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 .
Response to Amendment
The response filed 23 June 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application, wherein none of the claims have been amended.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holme et al. (US 2015/0099190, previously cited).
Claim 1: Holme teaches thin film and powder morphologies of lithium-stuffed garnets as catholytes, electrolytes, and anolytes for solid state lithium-secondary batteries (paragraph 0006). A tri-layer structure (i.e. a multi-layered ribbon) is embodied that includes a metal foil or metal powder positioned between and in contact with two distinct lithium stuffed garnet thin films (i.e. a first lithium stuffed garnet thin film as a first layer and a metal layer as a second layer at least partially overlaying the first layer) (paragraph 0250), or as a bilayer with a metal foil or powder in contact with a lithium stuffed garnet thin film (paragraph 0251). Multiple stacks of bilayers and trilayers may be used (paragraph 0254). The garnet-based film is referred to as a “green” film and is heat sintered to form the thin film (paragraphs 0221-0222). The lithium stuffed garnet is formed from films and powders of garnet precursors (paragraph 0209), also disclosed as nanostructured lithium stuffed garnet-based powder (paragraph 0135). That is, the first layer, being a lithium stuffed garnet thin film, is considered to include ceramic grains sintered to one another. The lithium stuffed garnet thin film can be less than 50 µm in thickness and several meters to several kilometers in length (paragraph 0135). These dimensions overlap the instantly claimed length and thickness, and the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap, lie inside of, or are close to ranges in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that as of the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of a criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented. It is noted that the width is not specifically disclosed, but would be considered a matter of design choice as a matter of size or proportion, and the courts have held that where the only different between the prior art and the claims being a recitation of relative dimensions that would not perform differently is not patentably distinct. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
While not teaching a singular example of the instantly claimed multi-layered ribbon (e.g. the width is not specified), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the multi-layered bilayer or trilayered structure to include having a suitable width in view of the length being several meters to kilometers, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 2: Holme teaches a specific example where lithium stuffed garnet powder was formed into a slurry and had a dried tape thickness of about 70 µm (paragraph 0516-0518), and Ni powder was screen printed (paragraph 0519). Being garnet (i.e. crystalline), the lithium stuffed garnet powder is contained at a volume content that is dependent on the amount of Ni powder screen printed (i.e. typically a thin layer), which is a matter of proportion and is a matter of design choice absent a showing of significance. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Claim 3: Holme teaches that the porous Garnet layer (i.e. the lithium stuffed garnet thin film; i.e. the first layer as outlined above) has pores with average pore diameter dimensions of about 5 nm to about 1 µm (paragraph 0312). Metal powder can be inserted between setter plates and the garnet film to be sintered, and the metal powder also sinters (i.e. forming a second layer) and adheres to the sintering film as the garnet film is sintered (paragraph 0359). It would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that a powder (i.e. the metal powder) would at least partially infiltrate and fill pores (at least at the surface) of the porous layer (i.e. of the first layer). Holme additionally teaches that metal powders (i.e. material of the second layer) can optionally be incorporated into the film (of the ceramic powder; i.e. of the first layer) or adhered to one side of the film (paragraph 0371).
Claim 4: Holme teaches that the lithium stuffed garnet thin film can be less than 50 µm in thickness (paragraph 0135), or can be formulated as a thin film with a film thickness of about 100 nm to about 100 µm (paragraph 0257). These ranges overlap the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. The thickness of the metal film is not specified, is a matter of proportion and design choice absent a showing of significance. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Claim 5: Holme teaches that the lithium stuffed garnet thin film can be less than 50 µm in thickness (paragraph 0135), or can be formulated as a thin film with a film thickness of about 100 nm to about 100 µm (paragraph 0257), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 6: Holme teaches that the lithium stuffed garnet thin film (i.e. and therefore the length of the ribbon) can several meters to several kilometers in length (paragraph 0135), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that the width is not specifically disclosed, but would be considered a matter of design choice as a matter of size or proportion, and the courts have held that where the only different between the prior art and the claims being a recitation of relative dimensions that would not perform differently is not patentably distinct. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Claim 7: Holme teaches that multiple stacks of bilayers and trilayers may be used (paragraph 0254). Being at least 40 layers is therefore considered a duplication of parts (i.e. how many bilayer or trilayers are stacked as a multiple stack), and the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Claim 8: Holme teaches multiple stacks of bilayers and trilayers may be used (paragraph 0254), which is considered to teach at least a third layer coupled to and overlaying the first layer on a side opposite the second layer (i.e. the first and second layers being in the middle of the stack).
Claim 9: Holme teaches multiple stacks of bilayers and trilayers may be used (paragraph 0254). Since the above outlined first and second layers are different materials (i.e. a first layer of garnet and a second layer of metal), the second layer is considered to apply a stress on the first layer. For a bilayer stack, the above outlined third layer is a different material than the first layer (i.e. the third layer is metal from an underlying bilayer) and therefore applies a stress on the first layer. Holme further teaches that the ceramic (i.e. the lithium stuffed garnet) can be tapecasted onto a substrate to form a green film and hot pressed under a load pressure or by placing between setter plates to constrain the film, which prevents inhomogeneities that stress and warp the film (paragraphs 0370-0376). Since stress and warping is prevented, the above outlined stack is considered where the stress applied by the third layer offsets the stress applied by the second layer and thereby prevents warping (i.e. facilitates a flatter ribbon rather than curled).
Claim 10: Holme teaches thin film and powder morphologies of lithium-stuffed garnets as catholytes, electrolytes, and anolytes for solid state lithium-secondary batteries (paragraph 0006). A tri-layer structure (i.e. a multi-layered ribbon) is embodied that includes a metal foil or metal powder positioned between and in contact with two distinct lithium stuffed garnet thin films (paragraph 0250), or as a bilayer with a metal foil or powder in contact with a lithium stuffed garnet thin film (paragraph 0251). That is, a first layer is a lithium stuffed garnet thin film, which comprises lithium.
Claim 11: Holme teaches a tri-layer structure (i.e. a multi-layered ribbon) is embodied that includes a metal foil or metal powder positioned between and in contact with two distinct lithium stuffed garnet thin films (i.e. a first lithium stuffed garnet thin film as a first layer and a metal layer at least partially overlaying the first layer) (paragraph 0250), or as a bilayer with a metal foil or powder in contact with a lithium stuffed garnet thin film (paragraph 0251). That is, the second layer comprises metal and is in direct contact with the lithium stuffed garnet thin film (i.e. the first layer).
Claim 12: Holme teaches thin film and powder morphologies of lithium-stuffed garnets (i.e. lithium-containing garnet) as catholytes, electrolytes, and anolytes for solid state lithium-secondary batteries (paragraph 0006). Holme teaches that the lithium stuffed garnet powder (i.e. material forming the thin film first layer) comprise crystalline domains (paragraph 0200) (i.e. is a polycrystalline ceramic).
Claim 13: Holme teaches that the lithium stuffed garnet thin films can have a high conductivity, such as greater than 10-4 S/cm (paragraph 0135). This range overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 14: Holme teaches the lithium stuffed garnet thin films have grain sizes less than 10 µm (paragraph 0135), or more specifically d50 diameters (i.e. median grain size which is comparable to average grain size) of between 10 nm to 10 µm (paragraph 0204). These ranges overlap the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 15: Holme teaches the film (i.e. ribbon) can be several meters to several kilometers in length (paragraph 0135), which overlaps the instantly claimed range for the length. See MPEP § 2144.05. A length up to several kilometers renders as obvious to (i.e. understood by) one of ordinary skill in the art for the film (i.e. ribbon) to be rolled on a spool as a matter of practicality in handling such a long thin film.
Claim 16: Holme shows SEM images of garnet-nickel bilayers (Fig. 55) and of sintered lithium stuffed garnet powder (i.e. sintered powder would form a film) (Figs. 56-58). The images show a structure that is granular (i.e. unpolished granular) in profile with grains protruding from a surface along with recessed portions. Based on the scale bars, the height of the protrusions are within the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 17: Holme teaches a bilayer with a metal foil or powder in contact with a lithium stuffed garnet thin film (paragraph 0251). Holme further teaches that the ceramic (i.e. the lithium stuffed garnet) can be tapecasted onto a substrate to form a green film and hot pressed under a load pressure or by placing between setter plates to constrain the film (paragraphs 0370-0376). Holme teaches that the setter plates are useful for imparting beneficial surface properties such as flatness (paragraph 0396). This teaching of imparting flatness renders obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the surface of the second layer facing away from the first layer (i.e. the surface of a bilayer facing a setter plate) would have a flatter (i.e. smoother) surface than the surface of the first layer having an unpolished granular profile.
Claim 18: Holme teaches that the film may have a porosity less than 3% (paragraph 0206) and further teaches that sintering may be conducted in a vacuum chamber so that pores that did contain gas can be sintered and densified (paragraph 0378) in conjunction with FAST sintering and using hot pressing, and promotes pore removal (paragraph 0380). This description renders as obvious having few defects, including pin holes, through the thickness of the sintered layer(s).
Claim 19: The limitations of claim 19 combine the limitations of claims 1, 3, and 10, which are each outlined above.
Claim 20: The limitations of claim 20 recite structural limitations recited in claims 1 and 10, which are outlined above. Regarding the limitation of being flattenable, this limitation is considered a material property, and Holme teaches a substantially identical material, as outlined above, and therefore would be expected to have substantially identical properties. See MPEP § 2112.01. Furthermore, Holme teaches that the ceramic (i.e. the lithium stuffed garnet) can be tapecasted onto a substrate to form a green film and hot pressed under a load pressure or by placing between setter plates to constrain the film (paragraphs 0370-0376). Holme teaches that the setter plates are useful for imparting beneficial surface properties such as flatness (paragraph 0396). This is considered to teach the thin film (i.e. the ribbon) to be flattenable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 23 June 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant argues, see p. 5-6, that Holme does not teach or suggest a ribbon of sintered ceramic material with the recited dimensions (i.e. particularly of a length of 10 m or greater) because the only mention of a long length is for an unsintered green tape. However, Holme teaches that a thin film form factor (i.e. a ribbon is a thin film form) can be sintered while it moves through calender rollers through which electrical current or voltage is provided as necessary for sintering such as FAST sintering (paragraphs 0363-0366). Holme further teaches that sintering may reduce the thickness of the film without reducing the length of the film more than about 1-25% (paragraph 0226) (i.e. the length of up to several kilometers cited above does not necessarily become significantly shorter).
Applicant argues, see p. 6, that Holme teaches the sintered films as being between setter plates. However, this is only one of the embodiments Holme teaches for sintering the films, whereas Holme also teaches sintering by passing through calender rollers through which electrical current or voltage is provided as necessary for sintering such as FAST sintering (paragraphs 0363-0366). This format would render obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (i.e. it would be immediately envisaged) to use a continuous process that would not require the thin film to be cut into discrete sections.
Applicant further argues, see p. 6, that the figures showing the sintering process in Holme depict discrete sections of film. However, the figures are depictions without scale bars which cannot be used as evidence of proportions. See MPEP § 2125(II). It is noted that it is common in the prior art to depict a simplified cut-away view focusing on one or few aspects of the invention rather than depicting a complete process when only the limited aspect(s) are needed for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand the concept.
Applicant argues, see p. 7, that Holme does not disclose any examples of sintered films having up to kilometers in length. However, the prior art is relevant for all that it contains (i.e. is not limited only to specific examples) and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123.
Applicant argues, see p. 7, that minute disturbances to the process conditions will cause the green film to break during sintering. However, this argument is a statement without evidence. See § MPEP 2145(I). Furthermore, Holme teaches that the thin film can be less than 50 µm in thickness and several meters to several kilometers in length (paragraph 0135), the thin film form factor can be sintered while it moves through calender rollers through which electrical current or voltage is provided as necessary for sintering such as FAST sintering (paragraphs 0363-0366), sintering may reduce the thickness of the film without reducing the length of the film more than about 1-25% (paragraph 0226), and the resulting films have a Young’s Modulus of about 130-150 GPa and Vicker’s hardness of about 5-7 GPa (paragraph 0261) (i.e. at least the Young’s Modulus would indicate that the film is not fragile as Applicant argues).
Applicant argues, see p. 8, that because the flatness limitation relied explicitly on the use of setter plates, and that setter plates are used in a discontinuous batch sintering process of discrete sections of film, that the setter plates could not be used to produced ribbons having a length of 10 m or greater. However, Holme does not teach the setter plates to be so limited in length, and the courts have held matters of size or proportion to be obvious as mere scaling up of a process capable of being scaled up would not establish patentability. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). In this respect, setter plates having a length of 10 m or greater (i.e. for producing ribbons having the recited length from unsintered ribbons that are up to several kilometers long) is merely a matter of the size of the setter plates. Furthermore, Holme teaches that the plates used for sintering and applying pressure can have a grid structure that is movable so that it can be placed on the sintering film at different positions during the sintering process (paragraph 0362). This is considered to render obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the sintering plates are movable so that in can be placed on the sintering film at different positions (e.g. along the length) during the sinter process and therefore is not limited to discrete lengths in a batch process.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KIM S HORGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 4:00 PM 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, 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.
/KIM S. HORGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights