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 amendment filed 26 February 2026 has been entered but does not place the application for allowance.
Claims 1-6 have been amended. Claims 1-18 remain pending and are fully examined herein.
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 1, 2, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2014/0370398 in view of Kimura et al. [“Preparation and characterization of lithium ion conductive Li3SbS4 glass and glass-ceramic electrolytes” Solid State Ionics 333 (2019) 45-49] and Kamaya et al (“A lithium superionic conductor” Nature Materials. 10 (2011) 682-686). Evidentiary support is provided by Kanno et al (US 2015/0037687)
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al teaches a solid sulfide electrolyte material represented by the general formula LiaMbPcS4 where M can be selected from several elements including Ge, Si, Sn, and Sb, 2.0 ≤ a ≤ 5.0, 0 ≤ b ≤ 0.5, and 0.5 ≤ c ≤ 1.3. Lee et al further suggests the solid electrolyte can be Li10GeP2S12, which differs from the claimed material only due to lack of the claimed amount of Sb substituted for P. (Para 0038)
Furthermore, Kamaya et al teaches Li10GeP2S12 as a solid electrolyte for lithium ion batteries (Abstract) and describes its crystal structure, which includes PS4 tetrahedra (e.g. Figure 2)
Lee et al does not teach any substitution of Sb in place of P within the material, such that the material is represented by the formula Li10M(P1-aSba)2S12 where 0.025 ≤ a ≤ 0.2.
In the context of related sulfide electrolyte materials, Kimura et al teaches that in contrast to the PS43-units known to be present in Li10GeP2S12, per Kamaya et al, the analogous SbS43- units are stable in the presence of humidified air, enhancing stability of the electrolyte against moisture. (Introduction section, 2nd paragraph; p46 left column 3rd paragraph)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select Sb as a component of M within the formula LiaMbPcS4 taught by Lee et al, in order to enhance the stability of the electrolyte against moisture, as taught by Kimura et al. The disclosed ranges of the respective elements within the general formula taught by Lee et al overlap with the instant claim, supporting a finding that the selection of the claimed values would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 [‘In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)’]. Kimura’s stability testing was conducted with humidified air, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the electrolyte using Sb would also exhibit enhanced stability in air without any coating layer or additive protection.
In the same field of endeavor, Kanno teaches a solid sulfide electrolyte material with M1 as Li, S, and M2 as one or more materials including P, Sb, Si, Ge, and Sn among others (Para 0060-0061), and further discloses that a combination of an M1 element and an M2 element may offer the same crystal structure with a similar XRD pattern irrespective of the kinds of an M1 element and an M2 element (Para 0065). Kanno’s teaching, as well as Kimura’s teaching that the crystal structure of the Li3SbS4 is similar to that of γ-Li3PS4 (Kimura: p47 right col para 2), provides evidence that a solid sulfide electrolyte material including a combination of P and Sb, for example, as components of M in the formula LiaMbPcS4 taught by Lee, would have a solid-solution structure.
Regarding claim 2, the range of values for b disclosed by Lee et al (i.e. 0 ≤ b ≤ 0.5) overlaps the range of claimed values of a within the Markush group. In the absence of evidence of criticality, selection of such values within the disclosed range of the prior art is considered to have been obvious. See MPEP 2144.05 [‘In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)’]
Regarding claim 7, Lee et al teaches that materials that are present in the solid electrolyte can include amorphous and crystalline phases (Para 0049, 0065, Figure 5). It is noted that the material will necessarily either be amorphous or crystalline (or a mix of both, corresponding to a composite). In addition, the limitation that the working temperature of the electrolyte is -100°C to 300°C corresponds to the intended use of the material and does not clearly impart any further structural limitation to the claim. As the material described by Lee et al in view of Kimura et al and Kamaya et al meets all structural limitations, this is considered to meet the claim. Furthermore, Lee et al tests the batteries at 30 °C, which is within the recited range. (Para 0066)
Regarding claim 11, Lee et al teaches that the sulfide solid electrolyte is used in preparing a battery. (Para 0036)
Claims 8-10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, Kimura et al, and Kamaya et al as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kanno et al. (US 2015/0037687)
Regarding claim 8, modified Lee et al teaches an inorganic sulfide solid electrolyte material as described above in addressing claim 1.
Modified Lee et al does not explicitly describe any preparation method for the electrolyte material.
Kanno et al teaches a method of preparing a related sulfide electrolyte material by providing the required raw materials in the desired proportions, grinding in a ball mill, and performing heat treatment to obtain the sulfide electrolyte material. (Para 0101)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify Lee et al by specifically preparing the electrolyte material using the grinding and heat treatment techniques as taught by Kanno et al, as Kanno et al teaches that this is a suitable technique for preparing inorganic solid sulfide electrolyte materials for batteries. (e.g. Para 0121, 0136) One of ordinary skill in the art would have naturally turned to the related prior art, such as Kanno et al, to select a suitable method of manufacturing the electrolyte, in the absence of specific guidance within Lee et al.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Kanno further teaches that the grinding can be performed for a time period most preferably within a range of 1-70 hours (Para 0110) and the heat treatment is most preferably performed at a temperature above 450 °C and below 600 °C. Both of these ranges overlap the claimed range, supporting a finding that the selection of the claimed duration and temperature would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 [‘In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)’]
Regarding claim 18, Lee et al further teaches that the sulfide solid electrolyte is used in preparing a battery. (Para 0036)
Claims 1, 2, 7-11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanno et al (US 2015/0037687) in view of Kimura et al. [“Preparation and characterization of lithium ion conductive Li3SbS4 glass and glass-ceramic electrolytes” Solid State Ionics 333 (2019) 45-49]
Regarding claim 1, Kanno et al teaches a solid sulfide electrolyte material represented by the general formula Li3.33(Sn0.7Si0.3)0.33P0.67S4, which differs from the claimed material only due to lack of the claimed amount of Sb substituted for P. (Table 2, Example 5; if subscripts are multiplied by 3) Kanno et al further teaches that the electrolyte material may include M1 as Li, S, and M2 as one or more materials including P, Sb, Si, Ge, and Sn among others. (Para 0060-0061) Within this broad disclosure, they further teach that the first embodiment is greatly characterized in that M2 may contain P and Si, and another element consisting of a group of elements including Sb. (Para 0061) Kanno et al further teaches that in this embodiment, the molar fraction of Si to M2 excluding P is ordinarily larger than 0, and in the case where P, Si, and another element are present in M2, this molar fraction is preferably 99 mol% or less. (Para 0062)
Kanno et al does not provide specific guidance for selecting Sb as the additional material to be included, or suggest it specifically as substituting in part for P, such that the material is represented by the formula Li10M(P1-aSba)2S12 where 0.025 ≤ a ≤ 0.2.
In the context of related sulfide electrolyte materials, Kimura et al teaches that in contrast to the PS43-units known to be present in Li10GeP2S12, per Kamaya et al, the analogous SbS43- units are stable in the presence of humidified air, enhancing stability of the electrolyte against moisture. (Introduction section, 2nd paragraph; p46 left column 3rd paragraph)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select Sb as a component of M2 within the formula material taught by Kanno et al, exemplified by Li3.33(Sn0.7Si0.3)0.33P0.67S4, in order to enhance the stability of the electrolyte against moisture, as taught by Kimura et al. The disclosed range of molar fraction of Si to M2 excluding P being 99% or less overlaps the claimed range of 0.025 ≤ a ≤ 0.2 within the claimed formula, which supports a finding that the selection of the claimed values would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 [‘In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)’] Kimura’s stability testing was conducted with humidified air, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the electrolyte using Sb would also exhibit enhanced stability in air without any coating layer or additive protection.
Kanno further discloses that a combination of an M1 element and an M2 element may offer the same crystal structure with a similar XRD pattern irrespective of the kinds of an M1 element and an M2 element (Para 0065). Kanno’s teaching, as well as Kimura’s teaching that the crystal structure of the Li3SbS4 is similar to that of γ-Li3PS4 (Kimura: p47 right col para 2), provides evidence that a solid sulfide electrolyte material including a combination of P and Sb as M2 would have a solid-solution structure.
Regarding claim 2, the disclosed range of molar ratio of Si to M2 excluding P being 99% or less overlaps the range of claimed values of a within the Markush group. In the absence of evidence of criticality, selection of such values within the disclosed range of the prior art is considered to have been obvious. See MPEP 2144.05 [‘In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)’]
Regarding claim 7, Kanno et al teaches that materials that are present in the solid electrolyte includes a crystalline phase (Para 0115). In addition, the limitation that the working temperature of the electrolyte is -100°C to 300°C corresponds to the intended use of the material and does not clearly impart any further structural limitation to the claim. As the material described by Lee et al in view of Kimura et al and Kamaya et al meets all structural limitations, this is considered to meet the claim. Furthermore, Lee et al tests the material at 25 °C, which is within the recited range. (Para 0139)
Regarding claim 8, Kanno et al teaches a method of preparing the sulfide electrolyte material by providing the required raw materials in the desired proportions, grinding in a ball mill, and performing heat treatment to obtain the sulfide electrolyte material. (Para 0101)
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Kanno et al further teaches that the grinding can be performed for a time period most preferably within a range of 1-70 hours (Para 0110) and the heat treatment is most preferably performed at a temperature above 450 °C and below 600 °C. Both of these ranges overlap the claimed range, supporting a finding that the selection of the claimed duration and temperature would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 [‘In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)’]
Regarding claims 11 and 18, Kanno et al teaches that the sulfide solid electrolyte is used in preparing a battery. (Para 0136)
Claim(s) 3, 4, 12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terai et al (US 2019/0140313) in view of Kimura et al. [“Preparation and characterization of lithium ion conductive Li3SbS4 glass and glass-ceramic electrolytes” Solid State Ionics 333 (2019) 45-49]. Evidentiary support is provided by Kanno et al (US 2015/0037687)
Regarding claim 3, Terai et al teaches an inorganic sulfide solid electrolyte having the formula Lia(P1-αMα)SbXc where M can be one of several elements including Sb, X is two or more among F, Cl, Br, and I, 5.0 ≤ a ≤ 7.5, 6.5 ≤ a+c ≤ 7.5, 0.5 ≤ a-b ≤ 1.5, 0 ≤ α ≤ 0.3, b>0, and c>0. (Para 0055-0058). The disclosed elemental proportions overlap with the instantly claimed formula Li6(P1-aMa)S5X. Terai also teaches that the disclosed electrolyte crystal structure comprises PS43- units (Para 0031)
Terai et al does not explicitly teach an electrolyte represented by the formula Li6(P1-aSba)S5X, wherein 0.05 ≤ a ≤ 0.2.
In the context of related sulfide electrolyte materials, Kimura et al teaches that in contrast to PS43-, analogous SbS43- units are stable in the presence of humidified air, enhancing stability of the electrolyte against moisture. (Introduction section, 2nd paragraph; p46 left column 3rd paragraph)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select Sb specifically as the element to partially substitute for P within the electrolyte material of Terai et al, in order to enhance the stability of the electrolyte against moisture, as taught by Kimura et al. The disclosed ranges of the respective elements within the general formula taught by Terai overlap with the instant claim, supporting a finding that the selection of the claimed values would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 [‘In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)’] Kimura’s stability testing was conducted with humidified air, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the electrolyte using Sb would also exhibit enhanced stability in air without any coating layer or additive protection.
In the same field of endeavor, Kanno teaches a solid sulfide electrolyte material with M1 as Li, S, and M2 as one or more materials including P, Sb, among others (Para 0060-0061), and further discloses that a combination of an M1 element and an M2 element may offer the same crystal structure with a similar XRD pattern irrespective of the kinds of an M1 element and an M2 element (Para 0065). Kanno’s teaching, as well as Kimura’s teaching that the crystal structure of the Li3SbS4 is similar to that of γ-Li3PS4 (Kimura: p47 right col para 2), provides evidence that a solid sulfide electrolyte material including a combination of P and Sb, for example, as components of M in the formula taught by Terai, would have a solid-solution structure.
Regarding claim 4, the range of values for α disclosed by Terai et al (i.e. 0 ≤ α ≤ 0.3) overlaps the range of claimed values of a within the Markush group. In the absence of evidence of criticality, selection of such values within the disclosed range of the prior art is considered to have been obvious. See MPEP 2144.05 [‘In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)’]
Regarding claim 12, Terai et al teaches that the electrolyte is a mixture of amorphous and crystalline phases (Para 0030), corresponding to the claimed crystalline-amorphous composite. In addition, the limitation that the working temperature of the electrolyte is -100°C to 300°C corresponds to the intended use of the material and does not clearly impart any further structural limitation to the claim. As the material described by Terai et al in view of Kimura et al meets all structural limitations, this is considered to meet the claim. Furthermore, Terai et al tests the batteries at 25 °C, which is within the recited range. (Para 0233)
Regarding claim 14, Terai et al teaches a method of preparing the sulfide material by providing the required raw materials in the desired proportions, grinding, and performing heat treatment to obtain the sulfide material represented by the formula described above. (Para 0088-0096)
Regarding claim 16, Terai et al teaches that the sulfide solid electrolyte is used in preparing a battery. (Para 0019)
Claims 5, 6, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US2014/0370398) in view of Kimura et al. [“Preparation and characterization of lithium ion conductive Li3SbS4 glass and glass-ceramic electrolytes” Solid State Ionics 333 (2019) 45-49]. Evidentiary support is provided by Kanno et al (US 2015/0037687)
Regarding claim 5, Lee et al teaches a general formula of LiaMbPcS4, where M can be one of several elements including Sb, 2.0 ≤ a ≤ 5.0, 0 ≤ b ≤ 0.5, and 0.5 ≤ c ≤ 1.3. Lee et al further suggests the solid electrolyte can be LiaPcS4 where 2.0 ≤ a ≤ 4.0 and 0.8 ≤ c ≤ 1.3, which essentially corresponds to the unsubstituted compound corresponding to the claim. (Para 0038)
Lee et al does not explicitly teach an electrolyte represented by the formula Li3(P1-aSba)S4, wherein 0.05 ≤ a ≤ 0.2.
In the context of related sulfide electrolyte materials, Kimura et al teaches that in contrast to the PS43-units present in Li3PS4, the analogous SbS43- units are stable in the presence of humidified air, enhancing stability of the electrolyte against moisture. (Introduction section, 2nd paragraph; p46 left column 3rd paragraph)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select Sb specifically as M within the formula LiaMbPcS4 taught by Lee et al, in order to enhance the stability of the electrolyte against moisture, as taught by Kimura et al. The disclosed ranges of the respective elements within the general formula taught by Lee et al overlap with the instant claim, supporting a finding that the selection of the claimed values would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 [‘In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)’] Kimura’s stability testing was conducted with humidified air, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the electrolyte using Sb would also exhibit enhanced stability in air without any coating layer or additive protection.
In the same field of endeavor, Kanno teaches a solid sulfide electrolyte material with M1 as Li, S, and M2 as one or more materials including P, Sb, Si, Ge, and Sn among others (Para 0060-0061), and further discloses that a combination of an M1 element and an M2 element may offer the same crystal structure with a similar XRD pattern irrespective of the kinds of an M1 element and an M2 element (Para 0065). Kanno’s teaching, as well as Kimura’s teaching that the crystal structure of the Li3SbS4 is similar to that of γ-Li3PS4 (Kimura: p47 right col para 2), provides evidence that a solid sulfide electrolyte material including a combination of P and Sb, for example, as components of M in the formula LiaMbPcS4 taught by Lee, would have a solid-solution structure.
Regarding claim 6, the range of values for b disclosed by Lee et al (i.e. 0 ≤ b ≤ 0.5) overlaps the range of claimed values of a within the Markush group. In the absence of evidence of criticality, selection of such values within the disclosed range of the prior art is considered to have been obvious. See MPEP 2144.05 [‘In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)’]
Regarding claim 13, Lee et al teaches that materials that are present in the solid electrolyte can include amorphous and crystalline phases (Para 0049, 0065, Figure 5). It is noted that the material will necessarily either be amorphous or crystalline (or a mix of both, corresponding to a composite). In addition, the limitation that the working temperature of the electrolyte is -100°C to 300°C corresponds to the intended use of the material and does not clearly impart any further structural limitation to the claim. As the material described by Lee et al in view of Kimura et al meets all structural limitations, this is considered to meet the claim. Furthermore, Lee et al tests the batteries at 30 °C, which is within the recited range. (Para 0066)
Regarding claim 17, Lee et al teaches that the sulfide solid electrolyte is used in preparing a battery. (Para 0036)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al and Kimura et al as applied to claim 5 above and further in view of Kanno et al. (US 2015/0037687)
Modified Lee et al teaches an inorganic sulfide solid electrolyte material as described above in addressing claim 5.
Modified Lee et al does not explicitly describe any preparation method for the electrolyte material.
Kanno et al teaches a method of preparing a related sulfide electrolyte material by providing the required raw materials in the desired proportions, grinding in a ball mill, and performing heat treatment to obtain the sulfide electrolyte material. (Para 0101)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify Lee by specifically preparing the electrolyte material using the grinding and heat treatment techniques as taught by Kanno et al, as Kanno et al teaches that this is a suitable technique for preparing inorganic solid sulfide electrolyte materials for batteries. (e.g. Para 0121, 0136) One of ordinary skill in the art would have naturally turned to the related prior art, such as Kanno et al, to select a suitable method of manufacturing the electrolyte, in the absence of specific guidance within Lee et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections of claim 1, Applicant argues that the present disclosure demonstrates unexpected results with enhanced air stability while maintaining high ionic conductivity, with reference to Figure 20 and page 12 of the specification. The cited data includes points with a=0.025, 0.075, 0.1, and 0.125, described as largely retaining their conductivity after exposure to air, in contrast with the known air-instability of Li10GeP2S12, which would correspond to a=0. This argument is not persuasive. It is noted that in order to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). [MPEP 716.02(d)]. In this case, applicant is claiming a range up to a=0.2, although no data is available for any values of a greater than 0.125, either within or outside the range. This is insufficient to establish criticality of the range, particularly at its upper end. Furthermore, the data is only available for M=Ge, although the claims are open to M being Si or Sn as well. The evidence is therefore not commensurate in scope with the claim. For these reasons, it is the examiner’s position that criticality of the range has not been established, and the prima facie case of obviousness has not been overcome.
In addition, regarding claim 1, Applicant takes issue with the rigorousness of conclusions offered by Kimura, and purported shortcomings in their showings regarding lithium antimony sulfide phases. Applicant further argues that even though Kimura teaches that Li3SbS4 has good air stability, it cannot be concluded that Li3(P1-aSba)S4 has excellent air stability based on this. Applicant further extrapolates from Kimura a series of contentions (Page 7, line 14 - Page 8, line 2) that do not appear to correspond to statements made within the reference. In response, the examiner points out that the substitution of Sb for P within the structure of the electrolyte materials taught by the prior art will result in the presence of the SbS4 units taught by Kimura as having the enhanced air stability. This is the teaching of Kimura that is relied upon. (i.e. that the SbS4 units provide enhanced air stability compared to the PS4 units) One having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect improved air stability as a result of such modification, based on the teachings of Kimura et al. In addition, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Applicant’s arguments concerning the γ phase Li3PS4 are similarly unpersuasive. The rejection does not rely upon this phase, but rather on the teaching of Kimura that substitution of Sb for P in the subunits of the overall structure would be expected to enhance stability for the reasons given. The rejection does not involve incorporating every aspect of the Kimura reference into the primary reference.
Similarly, regarding claim 3, Applicant argues that the present disclosure demonstrates unexpected results with enhanced air stability while maintaining high ionic conductivity, with reference to Figures 16 and 17 and page 11-12 of the specification. The cited data includes points with a=0.025 and 0.1, described as showing superior performance at a=0.1 relative to a=0.025. This argument is not persuasive. It is noted that in order to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). [MPEP 716.02(d)]. In this case, applicant is claiming a range from 0.05 ≤ a ≤ 0.2, although no data is available for any values of a between 0.025 and 0.1 or greater than 0.1, either within or outside the range. This is insufficient to establish criticality of the range. Furthermore, the data is only available for X=CL, although the claims are open to X being F, Br, or I as well. The evidence is therefore not commensurate in scope with the claim. For these reasons, it is the examiner’s position that criticality of the range has not been established, and the prima facie case of obviousness has not been overcome.
Applicant’s further arguments regarding the Kimura reference are not persuasive for reasons given above in responding to the arguments made regarding claim 1.
Applicant appears not to have included arguments specific to independent claim 5, and the rejection is maintained for similar reasons, as are the rejections of the dependent claims.
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 Jeffrey Barton, whose telephone number is (571) 272-1307. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30 AM – 6:00 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.
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.
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 9 June 2026
Prosecution Insights