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 .
Status of Application
Claim 7 is new, submitted on 11/6/2025. Claims 1 and 3-7 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Utsuno (US 20190140314 A1), in view of Owens (CA 1036666 A).
Regarding claim 1, Utsuno discloses a sulfide solid electrolyte (Title) comprising elemental lithium (Li), elemental phosphorus (P), elemental sulfur (S), and an elemental halogen (X) (Example 1 [0226] and Tables 4 and 5), wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte comprises a material that contains a crystalline phase having an argyrodite-type crystal structure ([0230]) and represented by peak IA in Table 7 and [0034]) , and a halide (lithium halide, [0234] and represented by peak Ic in Table 7 and [0187]).
While Utsuno discloses the need to further improve the ionic conductivity of the argyrodite type crystal solid electrolyte material ([0015]) and suppress the amount of hydrogen sulfide generated by a reaction with moisture contents in the air ([0016]), Utsuno does not explicitly discloses the lithium halide is a halide hydrate, nor the sulfide solid electrolyte has a weight loss rate of 2.7% or more and 9.6% or less, the weight loss rate is derived from the hydrate, and is measured by heating the sulfide solid from 25°C to 400°C at a heating rate of 10°C/min in thermogravimetry.
Owens teaches solid electrolyte including lithium halide for use in solid state electrochemical devices (Title), a specific object of provision of solid electrolytes characterized by adequate ionic conductivity together with relatively low electronic conductivity (Ln1-3/P3), and the objects and advantages are attained by a lithium halide solid electrolyte composition that includes a controlled amount of water (Ln8-10/P3) and the water need only be present in an mount which is sufficient to increase the conductivity of the electrolyte over that of the pure lithium halide species (Ln7-9/P5). Owens further teaches various lithium halide-water solid electrolytes with the resistivity of the cells measured and the water content determined as the results set forth in Table 1 (Ln1-10/P17). The last Example shown in Table 1, provides that a composition of 46.3 of wt.% of LiCl and 19.0 wt.% of water in the form of a halide hydrate phase (LiCl·H2O) with a 7.2x103 ohm centimeters of resistivity (Table 1/P20), which translates to a ratio of the weight percentage of water with respect to the weight percentage of lithium halide is about 41%. Another Example shown in Table 1 provides 16.7 wt.% of water and 61.5 wt.% of LiCl with 1.2x105 ohm centimeters of resistivity (Table 1/P19), which translates to a ratio of the weight percentage of water with respect to the weight percentage of lithium halide is about 21%. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to add a controlled amount of water of between 21 wt.% and 41 wt.% with respect to the weight of lithium halide in the form of hydrate, as taught by Owens, in order to have a solid electrolyte with adequate Li ion conductivity together with relatively low electronic conductivity.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a controlled amount (between 21 wt.% and 41 wt.%) of water with respect to the weight of lithium halide in the form of lithium halide hydrate to the Utsuno’s sulfide solid electrolyte, as taught by Owens, in order to have a sulfide solid electrolyte with an adequate Li ion conductivity.
Modified Utsuno further discloses the composition of the raw material mixture of Example 1 being Li2S (0.447 g), P2S5 (0.569 g), LiCl (0.217 g), and LiBr (0.267 g) ([0226] and Table 4), which translates to the total weight of lithium halide is 0.484 g and the total weight of the raw material is 1.5 g.
Thus, in light of the weight percentage of water with respect to the weight of lithium halide being between 21 wt.% and 41 wt.%, as taught by Table 1 of Owens, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to obtain the water mass ratio in the form of lithium halide hydrate with respect to the total weight of the sulfide solid electrolyte of modified Utsuno to be a value between 6.8 wt.% to 13.2 wt.%, which overlaps the claimed range of 2.7% or more and 9.6% or less regarding the weight loss rate derived from the hydrate, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. [Calculation as follows: (21 wt.% x 0.484)/1.5 = 6.8 wt.%; and (41 wt.% x 0.484)/1.5 = 13.2 wt.%].
It would have been further obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in order to achieve an optimized Li ion conductivity, as taught by Owens, to have the weight loss rate derived from the hydrate with respect to the total weight of the sulfide solid electrolyte of the modified Utsuno at a value that falls within the overlapping portion (6.8 wt% to 9.6 wt%) between the above calculated range and the claimed range, arriving at the claimed “the sulfide solid electrolyte comprising a hydrate, wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte has a weight loss rate of 2.7% or more and 9.6% or less, the weight loss rate is derived from the hydrate, and is measured by heating the sulfide solid from 25°C to 400°C at a heating rate of 10°C/min in thermogravimetry” without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, modified Utsuno discloses all of the limitations as set forth above (Example 1 [0226] and Tables 4 and 5), which reads on the elemental halogen is at least one of elemental chlorine (Cl) and elemental bromine (Br).
Regarding claim 4, modified Utsuno discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Utsuno further discloses a negative electrode mix is obtained by incorporating a negative electrode material to the sulfide solid electrolyte ([0114-0115]), which reads on the claimed “an electrode mixture comprising: the sulfide solid electrolyte according to claim 1; and an active material.”
Regarding claim 5, modified Utsuno discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Utsuno further discloses a solid-state battery comprising: a positive electrode layer; a negative electrode layer; and a solid electrolyte layer located between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer, the solid electrolyte layer containing the sulfide solid electrolyte ([0144]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Utsuno discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Since modified Utsuno has rendered obvious a weight loss rate derived from a hydrate being between 6.8 wt% to 9.6 wt%, as set forth in claim 1 rejection, the claimed limitation is also met because the range of 6.8 wt% to 9.6 wt% falls within the claimed range of 1.0% or more, and the halide hydrate of modified Utsuno would decompose and release hydrated water by evaporation (corresponds to the weight loss) under heating the sulfide solid electrolyte from 100 °C to 170 °C.
Regarding claim 7, modified Utsuno discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Since modified Utsuno has included a controlled amount (between 21 wt.% and 41 wt.%) of water with respect to the weight of lithium halide in the form of lithium halide hydrate to the Utsuno’s sulfide solid electrolyte taught by Owens; and modified Utsuno discloses the composition of the raw material mixture of Example 1 being Li2S (0.447 g), P2S5 (0.569 g), LiCl (0.217 g), and LiBr (0.267 g) ([0226] and Table 4), translating to the total weight of lithium halide is 0.484 g and the total weight of the raw material is 1.5 g, as established above in claim 1, which means the halide hydrate constituent in mass% based on the sulfide solid electrolyte in modified Utsuno is calculated to be ranging from about 39 mass% to 45 mass% {calculation: (100+21) wt% x (0.484/1.5)= 39 wt%; and (100+41) wt% x (0.484/1.5)= 45 wt%}, falling within the mass% range as claimed “wherein the halide hydrate is contained in a ratio of 5 mass% or more and less than 50 mass%, based on the sulfide solid electrolyte”.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments regarding the amended claim 1 filed on 11/6/2025 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues against the Office’s position that the claimed invention is obvious based on the teaching of Utsuno and Owens because Utsuno has an argyrodite crystal structure which is well-known water-soluble, a skilled artisan would NOT consider adding water to the lithium halide-containing sulfide solid electrolyte of Utsuno. In other words, one skilled artisan would not consider combining Utsuno with Owens because argyrodite crystal structure of Utsuno effectively teaches away from combination with Owens.
Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reason. Primary reference Utsuno discloses the need to further improve the ionic conductivity of the argyrodite type crystal solid electrolyte material ([0015]) which includes lithium halide (Example 1 [0226] and Tables 4 and 5), and Owens teaches solid electrolytes including a lithium halide with a controlled amount of water (Ln8-10/P3) in lithium halide hydrated form (LiCl LiCl·H2O) (Owens: Table 1) in order to increase the conductivity of the electrolyte over that of the pure lithium halide species (Ln7-9/P5). The lithium halide hydrate of Owens is a solid compound, water molecules present in the form of hydrates are incorporated within the crystal lattice, which is distinct from a liquid phase of water being used as solvent. Even though argyrodite crystal structure is water-soluble, it is soluble in liquid phase of water, but not soluble in hydrated water of Owens. The argyrodite crystal structure of the sulfide solid electrolyte of Utsuno would be stable with the addition of a controlled amount (between 21 wt.% and 41 wt.%) of water in the form of lithium halide hydrate, as taught by Owens. Thus argyrodite crystal structure of Utsuno does not teach away from adding hydrated solid form of water as a lithium halide hydrate. This argument is not found persuasive.
Further, since both Utsuno and Owens are in the same field of endeavor aiming for improving solid electrolyte ionic conductivities (Utsuno: [0015]; and Owens: Ln7-9/P5) containing lithium halides, a skilled artisan would be motivated to combine the teaching of Owens with Utsuno with a reasonable expectation of success that this modification with a controlled amount of lithium halide hydrate would achieve a sulfide solid electrolyte with an adequately improved Li ion conductivity as desired by Utsuno. Thus, the argument against the combination of Utsuno and Owens is not found persuasive.
Conclusion
6. 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 extension fee 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAN LUO whose telephone number is (571)270-5753. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00AM -5:00PM 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on (571)270-1292. 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.
/K. L./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
2/17/2026
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751