DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 8, 2024 has been entered.
Claims 1, 5 and 6 are currently amended. Claim 21 is newly added. Claims 1-12 and 21 are pending review in this action.
New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are presented below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on November 8, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0294517, hereinafter Yersak.
Regarding claim 1, Yersak teaches a method for forming an electrolyte (abstract). The method comprises a step of ball-milling starting materials comprising Na2S (sodium sulfide) and P2O5 (an oxide material) (paragraphs [0043, 0046, 0033, 0006, 0010]). The method further includes a step of pressing the resulting material to form a solid-state electrolyte (paragraphs [0034, 0035, 0042]). The electrolyte is a fully amorphous sodium oxy-sulfide glass (paragraph [0036]) – therefore it is “in the form of a continuous glass”.
Regarding claim 6, Yersak teaches that the ball-milling is performed at room temperature (paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 21, Yersak teaches that the entire solid-state electrolyte is in the form of a continuous glass (paragraph [0036]).
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Development of glass solid electrolytes for all-solid-state sodium batteries”, hereinafter Hayashi (document cited in IDS filed on 5 Nov 2020). (An English translation of the Hayashi document was provided with a prior office action).
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi teaches a method for forming an electrolyte. The method comprises a step of ball-milling starting materials comprising Na2S (sodium sulfide) and P2O5 (an oxide material) (p.4, Section 3. Method of Research). The method further includes a step of pressing the resulting material to form a solid-state electrolyte, (p.2, Section 1. Background). The electrolyte is a sodium oxy-sulfide glass, with the chemical formula Na3PS4-yOy (p. 7).
Hayashi teaches that the electrolyte is a glass ceramic (p. 7). It is thus understood to include glass (amorphous) regions and ceramic (crystalline) regions. As such, the electrolyte comprises a formed sodium oxy-sulfide glass region (no matter how small), which is in the form of an “entirely continuous glass”.
Regarding claims 2-4, Hayashi teaches the starting materials Na2S, P2S5 and P2O5 (p.4, Section 3. Method of Research).
The chemical formula for the final product is Na3PS4-yOy, which means that y was varied over a range. Hayashi further explicitly mentions y = 2, which would result in the formula Na3PS2O2 (p. 7). (Hayashi’s y corresponds to the instantly claimed x).
Hayashi does not explicitly describe the molar ratio of the mixed materials, however, in order to arrive at the final product of Na3PS2O2, the starting ratio Na2S:P2S5:P2O5 would necessarily have to be 75:5:20.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Development of glass solid electrolytes for all-solid-state sodium batteries”, hereinafter Hayashi (document cited in IDS filed on 5 Nov 2020), with evidence from J. Non-Cryst. Solids, 358, 93-98, hereinafter Berbano.
Regarding claim 6, Hayashi teaches a ball milling step (Section 3. Method of Research, p. 4).
Hayashi fails to report the temperature of the ball milling step.
It is well-known in the art that during ball milling, the energy necessary to cause chemical reactions between the mixed materials is provided by collisions within the vessel. Thus, the reactions occur near room temperature, without the need for external heating – see, e.g. Berbano (p. 93, 4th paragraph).
It is therefore understood that Hayashi’s ball milling step takes place at room temperature.
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 2-5, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0294517, hereinafter Yersak.
Regarding claim 2, Yersak teaches that the starting materials are Na2S, P2S5 and P2O5 mixed at a molar ratio of x Na2S · (100-x-y) P2S5 · y P2O5, where x is in the range 50 to 90 and y is up to 20 (paragraphs [0006, 0010, 0035]).
Yersak’s optimum range of 50 to 90 overlaps the instant application's optimum value of 75 for the molar fraction of Na2S in the claimed composition. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Yersak teaches that y is up to 20 (paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claim 4, the values x = 75 and y = 20 are within the optimal ranges taught by Yersak. Selecting x = 75 and y = 20 results in the sodium oxy-sulfide glass Na3PS2O2, which satisfies the instantly claimed formula.
Yersak’s optimum ranges for the content of Na2S and P2O5 result in overlapping ranges for the molar content of the constitutive elements (Na, P, S and O) in the instant application. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, the values x = 75 and y = 6 are within the optimal ranges taught by Yersak. Selecting x = 75 and y = 6 results in the sodium oxy-sulfide glass Na3PS3.4O0.6, which satisfies the instantly claimed formula.
Yersak’s optimum ranges for the content of Na2S and P2O5 result in overlapping ranges for the molar content of the constitutive elements (Na, P, S and O) in the instant application. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Yersak teaches that the pressing step is performed at a pressure in the range 0.1 MPa to 360 MPa (paragraph [0035]).
Yersak’s optimum range for the pressure of the pressing step overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 100 MPa to 450 MPa. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Yersak teaches a pressing step to form a fully dense electrolyte layer. Yersak defines a “fully dense” material as one having a residual porosity of up to 15%, which corresponds to a relative density of 85% or greater (paragraph [0034]).
Yersak’s optimum range for the relative density overlaps the instant application's optimum range of greater than 95%. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 8, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0294517, hereinafter Yersak as applied to claim 1 and further in view of “Development of glass solid electrolytes for all-solid-state sodium batteries”, hereinafter Hayashi and Japanese Patent Publication No. 2012-121789, hereinafter Hayashi ‘789. (A machine of Hayashi ‘789 was provided with a prior office action).
Regarding claims 8, 9 and 11, Yersak teaches a fully amorphous sodium oxy-sulfide glass (paragraph [0036]).
The sodium oxy-sulfide glass is produced from the starting materials Na2S, P2S5 and P2O5 mixed at a molar ratio of x Na2S · (100-x-y) P2S5 · y P2O5, where x is in the range 50 to 90 and y is up to 20 (paragraphs [0006, 0010, 0035]).
The sodium oxy-sulfide glass is formed in a method comprising a ball-milling step, followed by a pressing step at a pressure in the range 0.1 MPa to 360 MPa to achieve full density (paragraphs [0034, 0035, 0046]).
Yersak does not report on the instantly claimed properties of the material.
Hayashi teaches the sodium oxy-sulfide solid electrolyte Na3PS2O2 (p.4, Section 3. Method of Research). This material is formed from the same starting materials as taught by Yarsek ball-milled at a molar ratio of 75 Na2S, 5 P2S5 and 20 P2O5.
Hayashi ‘789 teaches an analogous material ball-milled at room temperature and a speed of 510 rpm and pressed at 370 MPa (Hayashi‘789’s paragraphs [0024, 0025]).
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the molar ratio taught by Hayashi and the ball-milling speed and pressure taught by Hayashi ‘789 for the purpose of forming the material without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Given that the material in the combination of Yersak, Hayashi and Hayashi ‘789 has the instantly disclosed and claimed structure and is formed by the instantly disclosed and claimed method, it is expected to have the instantly claimed properties.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0294517, hereinafter Yersak as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. 2012-121789, hereinafter Hayashi ‘789.
Regarding claim 12, Yersak teaches a ball milling step (paragraph [0046]).
Yersak fails to report the speed of the ball milling step.
The Hayashi ‘789 reference is directed to forming a solid electrolyte from ball-milled sodium sulfide. Hayashi ‘789 teaches a rotation speed in the range 50 to 600 rpm and explains that the higher the rotation speed, the more uniformly the raw materials may be mixed and reacted (paragraph [0017]). In Hayashi ‘789’s own method, the rotation speed is 510 rpm (paragraph [0024]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the rotation speed higher that 500 rpm, e.g. at 510 rpm, for the purpose of ensuring a complete and uniform reaction between the raw materials in Yersak’s mixture.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Development of glass solid electrolytes for all-solid-state sodium batteries”, hereinafter Hayashi as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0189918, hereinafter Tatsumisago.
Regarding claim 5, Hayashi teaches the starting materials Na2S, P2S5 and P2O5 (p.4, Section 3. Method of Research). The chemical formula for the final product is Na3PS4-yOy, which means that y was varied over a range (Hayashi’s y corresponds to the instantly claimed x). In an example, the final product is Na3PS2O2, which corresponds to the starting ratio Na2S:P2S5:P2O5 of 75:5:20.
Hayashi does not specify the values of y (instantly claimed x) used.
Tatsumisago teaches a sulfide solid state electrolyte formed by ball milling the starting materials Li2S, P2S5 and P2O5 (paragraphs [0039-0046]). Tatsumisago teaches that a preferred fraction for Li2S is 75 and P2S5:P2O5 are related by (25-x):x, where x is less than 25 (paragraphs [0026, 0024]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary Hayashi’s starting materials composition according to Tatsumisago’s teaching for the purpose of finding an optimum composition.
Within the range of values taught by the combination of Hayashi and Tatsumisago is the ratio 75:22.5:2.5, which would result in the final product formula of Na3PS3.75O0.25.
The optimum range in the combination of Hayashi and Tasumisago overlaps the instant application's optimum value for the molar fraction of oxygen in the claimed compound. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 6, 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Development of glass solid electrolytes for all-solid-state sodium batteries”, hereinafter Hayashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. 2012-121789, hereinafter Hayashi ‘789.
Regarding claim 6, Hayashi teaches a ball milling step (Section 3. Method of Research, p. 4).
Hayashi fails to report the temperature of the ball milling step.
The Hayashi ‘789 reference is produced by the same author as the Hayashi reference and teaches forming a solid electrolyte from ball-milled sodium sulfide. Hayashi ‘789 reports that the ball-milling is performed at room temperature (paragraph [0024]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ball mill the materials at room temperature without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, Hayashi teaches a pressing step to form electrolyte pellets (p. 2).
Hayashi fails to report the pressure applied during the pressing step.
The Hayashi ‘789 reference is produced by the same author as the Hayashi reference and teaches forming a solid electrolyte from ball-milled sodium sulfide (paragraphs [0015, 0016]). Hayashi ‘789 forms pellets of the solid electrolyte by applying pressure of 370 MPa (paragraph [0025]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a pressure of 370 MPa for the purpose of forming the pellets.
Regarding claim 12, Hayashi teaches a ball milling step (Section 3. Method of Research, p. 4).
Hayshi fails to report the speed of the ball milling step.
The Hayashi ‘789 reference is produced by the same author as the Hayashi reference and teaches forming a solid electrolyte from ball-milled sodium sulfide. Hayashi ‘789 teaches a rotation speed in the range 50 to 600 rpm and explains that the higher the rotation speed, the more uniformly the raw materials may be mixed and reacted (paragraph [0017]). In Hayashi ‘789’s own method, the rotation speed is 510 rpm (paragraph [0024]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the rotation speed higher that 500 rpm, e.g. at 510 rpm, for the purpose of ensuring a complete and uniform reaction between the raw materials in Hayashi’s mixture.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Development of glass solid electrolytes for all-solid-state sodium batteries”, hereinafter Hayashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. 2012-121789, hereinafter Hayashi ‘789 and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0351159, hereinafter Fujiki.
Regarding claim 10, Hayashi teaches a pressing step to form electrolyte pellets (p. 2). Hayashi does not report the pressure applied during the pressing step.
Hayashi fails to report the relative density of the electrolyte pellets.
The Hayashi ‘789 reference is produced by the same author as the Hayashi reference and teaches forming a solid electrolyte from ball-milled sodium sulfide (paragraphs [0015, 0016]). Hayashi ‘789 forms pellets of the solid electrolyte by applying pressure of 370 MPa (paragraph [0025]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a pressure of 370 MPa for the purpose of forming the pellets.
Fujiki teaches sulfide solid electrolytes formed by mechanical milling followed by pressing (paragraphs [0080, 0085]). Fujiki teaches that a relative density of 95% or greater is desirable, because at a high relative density there is a reduced number and size of gaps in the material and this allows for the prevention of a short-circuit in the battery (paragraphs [0083, 0084]).
Given that Hayashi’s solid electrolyte material is substantially the same as instantly claimed and disclosed, it is expected that it would be capable of attaining the claimed relative density
Further, given that the solid electrolyte material in the combination of Hayashi and Hayashi ‘789 is subjected to a pressure within the instantly claimed and disclosed range, it is expected that it would attain the claimed relative density of greater than 95%. Finally, the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to achieve a relative density greater than 95% in order to maximally reduce the size and number of gaps within the material as taught by Fujiki.
=============
Clarifying note: The grounds of rejection in view of Hayashi up until this point has been based on Hayashi’s final product – the glass ceramic sodium oxy-sulfide solid electrolyte.
The following grounds of rejection are based on the material formed after the ball-milling step and prior to the heating step – a glass sodium oxy-sulfide solid electrolyte.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Development of glass solid electrolytes for all-solid-state sodium batteries”, hereinafter Hayashi in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. 2012-121789, hereinafter Hayashi ‘789.
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi teaches a method for forming an electrolyte. The method comprises a step of ball-milling starting materials comprising Na2S (sodium sulfide) and P2O5 (an oxide material) (p.4, Section 3. Method of Research). The method further includes a step of pressing the resulting material to form a solid-state electrolyte, (p.2, Section 1. Background). The electrolyte is a sodium oxy-sulfide glass, with the chemical formula Na3PS4-yOy (p. 7).
Hayashi’s method includes a heat treatment step after the ball-milling which creates some crystallinity in the solid electrolyte and renders it a glass ceramic (p. 7).
Hayashi fails to teach that the whole pressed sample is a continuous glass.
The Hayashi ‘789 reference is produced by the same author as the Hayashi reference and teaches forming an analogous solid electrolyte from ball-milled sodium sulfide (paragraphs [0015, 0016]). Hayashi ‘789 teaches pressing the ball-milled sample into pellets prior to any heat treatment step and shows that at this stage the sample is a glass (paragraphs [0024-0026] and figures 1 and 2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to press the ball-milled sample prior to heat treatment in the manner taught by Hayashi ’789 as this is the order of steps as taught by Hayashi ‘789 or alternatively, at least for the purpose of being able to compare its structure and properties to the subsequently formed heat-treated glass ceramic sample.
Thus, prior to the heating step, in the combination of Hayashi and Hayashi ‘789, there would be a pressed solid electrolyte pellet, which is a sodium oxy-sulfide glass in the form of a continuous glass.
Regarding claims 2-4, Hayashi teaches the starting materials Na2S, P2S5 and P2O5 (p.4, Section 3. Method of Research).
The chemical formula for the final product is Na3PS4-yOy, which means that y was varied over a range. Hayashi further explicitly mentions y = 2, which would result in the formula Na3PS2O2 (p. 7). (Hayashi’s y corresponds to the instantly claimed x).
Hayashi does not explicitly describe the molar ratio of the mixed materials, however, in order to arrive at the final product of Na3PS2O2, the starting ratio Na2S:P2S5:P2O5 would necessarily have to be 75:5:20.
Regarding claim 6, Hayashi teaches a ball milling step (Section 3. Method of Research, p. 4).
Hayashi fails to report the temperature of the ball milling step.
The Hayashi ‘789 reference is produced by the same author as the Hayashi reference and teaches forming a solid electrolyte from ball-milled sodium sulfide. Hayashi ‘789 reports that the ball-milling is performed at room temperature (paragraph [0024]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ball mill the materials at room temperature without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, Hayashi teaches a pressing step to form electrolyte pellets (p. 2).
Hayashi fails to report the pressure applied during the pressing step.
The Hayashi ‘789 reference is produced by the same author as the Hayashi reference and teaches forming a solid electrolyte from ball-milled sodium sulfide (paragraphs [0015, 0016]). Hayashi ‘789 forms pellets of the solid electrolyte by applying pressure of 370 MPa (paragraphs [0024, 0025]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a pressure of 370 MPa for the purpose of forming the pellets.
Regarding claim 8, Hayashi teaches a solid-state electrolyte, which is formed through ball-milling the starting materials Na2S, P2S5 and P2O5 in quantities to achieve the final chemical formula Na3PS2O2 (p.4, Section 3. Method of Research). The method includes a subsequent step of pressing the resulting material to form a solid-state electrolyte pellet (p.2, Section 1. Background).
Hayashi as modified by Hayashi ‘789 teaches that the ball-milling is performed at room temperature and 510 rpm and the pressing is performed at 370 MPa (Hayashi‘789’s paragraphs [0024, 0025]).
Thus, the material of Hayashi as modified by Hayashi ‘789 (prior to the heating step) has the instantly disclosed and claimed structure and is formed by the instantly disclosed and claimed method, therefore it is expected to have the instantly claimed properties.
Regarding claim 9, the solid-state electrolyte of Hayashi as modified by Hayashi ‘789 is a glass (prior to the heating step) – therefore it is amorphous.
Regarding claim 11, Hayashi teaches a solid-state electrolyte, which is formed through ball-milling the starting materials Na2S, P2S5 and P2O5 in quantities to achieve the final chemical formula Na3PS2O2 (p.4, Section 3. Method of Research). The method includes a subsequent step of pressing the resulting material to form a solid-state electrolyte pellet (p.2, Section 1. Background).
Hayashi as modified by Hayashi ‘789 teaches that the ball-milling is performed at room temperature and 510 rpm and the pressing is performed at 370 MPa (paragraphs [0024, 0025]).
Thus, the material of Hayashi as modified by Hayashi ‘789 (prior to the heating step) has the instantly disclosed and claimed structure and is formed by the instantly disclosed and claimed method, therefore it is expected to have the instantly claimed properties.
Regarding claim 12, Hayashi teaches a ball milling step (Section 3. Method of Research, p. 4).
Hayshi fails to report the speed of the ball milling step.
The Hayashi ‘789 reference is produced by the same author as the Hayashi reference and teaches forming a solid electrolyte from ball-milled sodium sulfide. Hayashi ‘789 teaches a rotation speed in the range 50 to 600 rpm and explains that the higher the rotation speed, the more uniformly the raw materials may be mixed and reacted (paragraph [0017]). In Hayashi ‘789’s own method, the rotation speed is 510 rpm (paragraph [0024]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the rotation speed higher that 500 rpm, e.g. at 510 rpm, for the purpose of ensuring a complete and uniform reaction between the raw materials in Hayashi’s mixture.
Regarding claim 21, Hayashi as modified by Hayashi ‘789 teaches that the entire solid-state electrolyte is in the form of a continuous glass (Hayashi ‘789’s paragraph [0026] and figures 1 and 2).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Development of glass solid electrolytes for all-solid-state sodium batteries”, hereinafter Hayashi and Japanese Patent Publication No. 2012-121789, hereinafter Hayashi ‘789 as applied to claim 1 above as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0189918, hereinafter Tatsumisago.
Regarding claim 5, Hayashi teaches the starting materials Na2S, P2S5 and P2O5 (p.4, Section 3. Method of Research). The chemical formula for the final product is Na3PS4-yOy, which means that y was varied over a range (Hayashi’s y corresponds to the instantly claimed x). In an example, the final product is Na3PS2O2, which corresponds to the starting ratio Na2S:P2S5:P2O5 of 75:5:20.
Hayashi does not specify the values of y (instantly claimed x) used.
Tatsumisago teaches a sulfide solid state electrolyte formed by ball milling the starting materials Li2S, P2S5 and P2O5 (paragraphs [0039-0046]). Tatsumisago teaches that a preferred fraction for Li2S is 75 and P2S5:P2O5 are related by (25-x):x, where x is less than 25 (paragraphs [0026, 0024]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary Hayashi’s starting materials composition according to Tatsumisago’s teaching for the purpose of finding an optimum composition.
Within the range of values taught by the combination of Hayashi and Tatsumisago is the ratio 75:22.5:2.5, which would result in the final product formula of Na3PS3.75O0.25.
The optimum range in the combination of Hayashi and Tasumisago overlaps the instant application's optimum value for the molar fraction of oxygen in the claimed compound. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, Hayashim as modified by Hayashi ‘789 and Tasumisago discloses the claimed invention except for the exact optimum value for the molar fraction of oxygen in the claimed compound in the instant application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine this exact optimum range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Development of glass solid electrolytes for all-solid-state sodium batteries”, hereinafter Hayashi and Japanese Patent Publication No. 2012-121789, hereinafter Hayashi ‘789 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0351159, hereinafter Fujiki.
Regarding claim 10, Hayashi teaches a solid-state electrolyte, which is formed through ball-milling the starting materials Na2S, P2S5 and P2O5 in quantities to achieve the final chemical formula Na3PS2O2 (p.4, Section 3. Method of Research). The method includes a subsequent step of pressing the resulting material to form a solid-state electrolyte pellet (p.2, Section 1. Background).
Hayashi as modified by Hayashi ‘789 teaches that the ball-milling is performed at room temperature and 510 rpm and the pressing is performed at 370 MPa (paragraphs [0024, 0025]).
Thus, the material of Hayashi as modified by Hayashi ‘789 (prior to the heating step) has the instantly disclosed and claimed structure and is formed by the instantly disclosed and claimed method, therefore it is expected to have the instantly claimed properties.
Hayashi fails to report the relative density of the electrolyte pellets.
Fujiki teaches sulfide solid electrolytes formed by mechanical milling followed by pressing (paragraphs [0080, 0085]). Fujiki teaches that a relative density of 95% or greater is desirable, because at a high relative density there is a reduced number and size of gaps in the material and this allows for the prevention of a short-circuit in the battery (paragraphs [0083, 0084]).
Given that the solid electrolyte of Hayashi as modified by Hayashi ‘789 is substantially the same as instantly claimed and disclosed, it is expected that it would be capable of attaining the claimed relative density
Further, given that the solid electrolyte material in the combination of Hayashi and Hayashi ‘789 is subjected to a pressure within the instantly claimed and disclosed range, it is expected that it would attain the claimed relative density of greater than 95%. Finally, the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to achieve a relative density greater than 95% in order to maximally reduce the size and number of gaps within the material as taught by Fujiki.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on November 8, 2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant challenges the grounds of rejection in view of Hayashi. Applicant asserts that glass ceramics are characterized by discontinuous crystalline phases interspersed within glass phases and argues that Hayashi does not teach an entirely continuous glass.
It is correct that the final product in Hayashi is a glass ceramic and that it includes crystalline phases interspersed within glass phases. However, as articulated in the current and prior office actions, the current phrasing of the independent claim does not require that the entire solid-state electrolyte formed through the claimed method be a continuous glass. There are entirely continuous glass regions within Hayashi’s final product which are formed in a method including the claimed steps.
Further, as articulated in the second grounds of rejection in view of Hayashi and Hayashi ‘789, there is also an intermediate product in Hayashi, which is entirely in a glass state, which is formed according to the claimed steps and meets all of the claimed structural limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 5.00 PM.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
LILIA V. NEDIALKOVA
Examiner
Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724