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 Claims
The Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 05/16/2025, has been entered. Claim 1 is amended and claims 2-14 stand as originally or previously presented. Support for the amendments is found in the original filing, and there is no new matter.
Upon considered said amendments and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C.103 rejection set forth in Office Action mailed 01/28/2025 has been maintained (and altered as required by amendment), as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 10 recites the broad recitation “a total amount of the ester compound and the organic solvent is 1.5 mass% or less”, and the claim also recites “a total amount of the ester compound and the organic solvent is 0.1 mass% or more and 1.5 mass% or less", from being dependent on Claim 1, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 5-7, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi et al. (JP 2014102987 A).
Regarding Claims 1, 11 and 13, Ohashi discloses the limitations for a sulfide solid electrolyte (Ohashi, sulfide solid electrolyte, Abstract) for a solid-state battery (Ohashi, sulfide solid electrolyte is used in an all-solid state battery, [0050]) comprising a lithium-ion conductive sulfide (Ohashi, solid electrolyte exhibiting excellent lithium ion conductive performance, [0036]) containing elemental lithium (Li), elemental phosphorus (P), and elemental sulfur (S) (Ohashi, for excellent lithium ion conductive performance, the solid electrolyte produced in the present invention is preferably a solid electrolyte containing Li, P, and S as main components, [0036]), wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte further comprises an ester compound (Ohashi, an additive, e.g. an ester compound, can be added to the container containing the solvent, [0023]) and a solvent (Ohashi, as the solvent, a hydrocarbon solvent can be used, [0018]).
While Ohashi does not explicitly disclose that the sulfide solid electrolyte has at least one peak observed in a chemical shift range of 3.4 ppm to 4.8 ppm in a spectrum obtained by 1H-NMR measurement electrolyte and has a full width at half maximum of the peak observed in the chemical shift range of 3.4 ppm to 4.8 ppm in the spectrum obtained by 1H-NMR measurement is from 0.2 ppm to 1.0 ppm,
the Applicant discloses that the noted peak is derived from a hydrogen atom that is bound to a carbon atom located adjacent to an oxygen atom in an ester linkage (see e.g. Instant Specification [0017]) and the FWHM indicates that an ester linkage site is bound to the surface of the lithium-ion conductive sulfide (see e.g. Instant Specification [0015]).
Accordingly, it is reasonably interpreted that the presence of a hydrogen atom that is bound to a carbon atom located adjacent to an oxygen atom in an ester linkage, and the ester linkage site being bound to the surface of the lithium-ion conductive sulfide is critical to the recited peak such that the sulfide solid electrolyte would necessarily possess the recited peak.
Thus, it would be reasonable to determine that the reaction between the sulfide solid electrolyte and the ester of Ohashi would result in a presence of a hydrogen atom that is bound to a carbon atom located adjacent to an oxygen atom in an ester linkage and the ester linkage site being bound to the surface of the lithium-ion conductive sulfide.
As Ohashi discloses (1) a substantially similar sulfide solid electrolyte comprising
an ester linkage having hydrogen bonded to carbon adjacent to oxygen and (2) a substantially similar manufacturing method (Ohashi, wet pulverization makes it easier to produce a particulate sulfide solid electrolyte with improved ion conductivity, [0012]) compared to the instant method of wet pulverization (Instant Specification [0035-0038]),
it is submitted that the sulfide solid electrolyte of Ohashi would necessarily exhibit the recited peak between 3.4 – 4.8 ppm in 1H-NMR and a full width at half maximum of the peak observed in the chemical shift range of 3.4 ppm to 4.8 ppm in the spectrum obtained by 1H-NMR measurement is from 0.2 ppm to 1.0 ppm. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established, as set forth in MPEP 2112.01 (1).
Ohashi does not explicitly disclose that the sulfide solid has a peak area observed in the range of 3.4 ppm to 4.8 ppm in the spectrum obtained by 1H-NMR measurement is 1.0 x 109 or more and 2.0 x 1010 or less.
With respect to the limitations a peak area observed in the range of 3.4 ppm to 4.8 ppm in the spectrum obtained by 1H-NMR measurement is 1.0 x 109 or more and 2.0 x 1010 or less, it is submitted that such limitations are simply measurements of, and thus descriptions of, inherent properties of the recited sulfide solid electrolyte.
Applicant discloses that the peak area corresponds to the amount of the ester compound contained in the sulfide solid electrolyte (see Instant Specification [0027-0028]).
Accordingly, it is reasonably interpreted that the amount of the ester compound contained in the sulfide solid electrolyte, i.e. a total amount of the ester compound and the organic solvent is 0.1 mass% or more and 1.5 mass% or less and a mass ratio of an amount of the ester compound to a total amount of the ester compound and the organic solvent is 0.05 or more is critical to the recited peak area range such that it would fulfil the recited measurements and necessarily possess the inherent properties (Claims 11 and 13) (see e.g. Instant Specification [0033-0034]).
Ohashi discloses that from the view point of making it easy to prevent adhesion of the coarse raw material to the media during grinding, the amount of the ester compound added is preferably 0.01% by weight or more (Ohashi, [0028]; the Examiner notes that while Ohashi does not disclose a mass ratio of ester compound to the total mass of the solvent and ester compound, the disclosed ester compound amount of 0.01% by weight or more would overlap the claimed mass ratio of 0.05 or more).
As Ohashi discloses (1) a substantially similar sulfide solid electrolyte comprising
an ester linkage having hydrogen bonded to carbon adjacent to oxygen and (2) a substantially similar manufacturing method (Ohashi, wet pulverization makes it easier to produce a particulate sulfide solid electrolyte with improved ion conductivity, [0012]) compared to the instant method of wet pulverization (Instant Specification [0035-0038]), and (3) a substantially similar amount of ester compound added to the sulfide solid electrolyte, it is submitted that the sulfide solid electrolyte of Ohashi would necessarily exhibit a peak area observed in the range of 3.4 ppm to 4.8 ppm in the spectrum obtained by 1H-NMR measurement is 1.0 x 109 or more and 2.0 x 1010 or less.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established, as set forth in MPEP 2112.01 (1).
Ohashi discloses a total amount of the ester compound (Ohashi, from the view point of making it easy to prevent adhesion of the coarse raw material to the media during grinding, the amount of the ester compound added is preferably 0.01% by weight or more, [0028]) and the organic solvent is 0.1 mass% or more and 1.5 mass% or less (Ohashi, the finely divided sulfide solid electrolyte is dried for a predetermined time to remove the solvent and additives, [0032]; the Examiner notes that drying will still leave small traces of solvent and additives, which would overlap with the claimed range of 0.1 mass% or more and 1.5 mass% or less).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 5, Ohashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ohashi discloses the limitations for an electrode mixture (Ohashi, negative electrode active material layer, [0051]) comprising the sulfide solid electrolyte and an active material (Ohashi, includes a negative electrode active material, a sulfide solid electrolyte, and a binder, [0051]).
Regarding Claim 6, Ohashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ohashi discloses the limitations for a solid electrolyte layer comprising the sulfide solid electrolyte (Ohashi, solid electrolyte layer includes a sulfide solid electrolyte and a binder, [0051]).
Regarding Claim 7, Ohashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ohashi discloses the limitations for a solid-state battery comprising the sulfide solid electrolyte (Ohashi, an all-solid-state battery in which the sulfide solid electrolyte is used in one or more layers, [0051]).
Regarding Claim 10, Ohashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ohashi discloses a sulfide solid electrolyte (Ohashi, sulfide solid electrolyte, Abstract), wherein a total amount of the ester compound (Ohashi, from the view point of making it easy to prevent adhesion of the coarse raw material to the media during grinding, the amount of the ester compound added is preferably 0.01% by weight or more, [0028]) and the organic solvent is 1.5 mass% or less (Ohashi, the finely divided sulfide solid electrolyte is dried for a predetermined time to remove the solvent and additives, [0032]; the Examiner notes that drying will still leave small traces of solvent and additives, which would overlap with the claimed range of 1.5 mass% or less).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claims 12 and 14, Ohashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ohashi discloses a sulfide solid electrolyte (Ohashi, sulfide solid electrolyte, Abstract), wherein the organic solvent comprises an aromatic hydrocarbon or an aliphatic hydrocarbon (Ohashi, examples of hydrocarbon solvents that can be used include aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzene, [0018]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi et al. (JP 2014102987 A) as applied to Claim 1 above and in view of Miyashita et al. (US 20170352916 A1, hereinafter Miyashita)
Regarding Claim 2, Ohashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ohashi discloses a sulfide solid electrolyte (Ohashi, sulfide solid electrolyte, Abstract). Ohashi is silent regarding the sulfide solid electrolyte having an argyrodite-type crystal structure.
Miyashita discloses a sulfide solid electrolyte having an argyrodite-type crystal structure (Miyashita, sulfide-based solid electrolyte which includes a compound having a crystal phase of a cubic argyrodite-type crystal structure, [0076]). Miyashita teaches that by having a sulfide-based solid electrolyte which includes a compound having a crystal phase of a cubic argyrodite-type crystal structure, cycle characteristics can be enhanced and a generation amount of hydrogen sulfide can be suppressed when being left to stand in the air and which can maintain high conductivity even when being left to stand in dry air (Mayashita, Abstract, [0076]).
Ohashi and Mayashita are analogous to the current invention as they are all directed towards a sulfide solid electrolyte.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a compound having a crystal phase of a cubic argyrodite-type crystal structure, as taught by Miyashita in the sulfide solid electrolyte of Ohashi, in order to enhance cycle characteristics enhanced and suppress a generation amount of hydrogen sulfide when being left to stand in the air and which can maintain high conductivity even when being left to stand in dry air.
Claims 3-4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi et al. (JP 2014102987 A), as applied to Claim 1 above, and as evidenced by Gadewar et al. (US 20130197266 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Ohashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ohashi discloses the limitations for a sulfide solid electrolyte (Ohashi, sulfide solid electrolyte, Abstract), wherein the ester compound is an ester compound (Ohashi, examples of ester compounds include ethyl acetate, [0027]) of a carboxylic acid and an alcohol. It is evidenced by Gadewar that ethyl acetate is produced by the esterification of acetic acid with ethanol (Gadewar, [0004]; the Examiner notes that acetic acid is a carboxylic acid and ethanol is an alcohol).
Regarding Claim 4, Ohashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ohashi discloses the limitations for a sulfide solid electrolyte (Ohashi, sulfide solid electrolyte, Abstract), wherein the ester compound (Ohashi, examples of ester compounds include ethyl acetate, [0027]) is represented by structural formula (1) below (Ohashi, examples of ester compounds include ethyl acetate, [0027]),
PNG
media_image1.png
70
212
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein x represents an integer of 0 to 2 (Ohashi, x = 2 hydrogen atoms, [0027]), R1 represents a hydrogen atom or a linear or branched alkyl group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms (Ohashi, R1 = linear alkyl group having 1 carbon atom, [0027]), and R2 each independently represent a hydrogen atom or a linear or branched alkyl group having 1 to 7 carbon atoms (Ohashi, R2 = linear alkyl group having 1 carbon atom, [0027]).
Regarding Claim 8, Ohashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ohashi discloses the limitations for a method for producing a sulfide solid electrolyte (Ohashi, method for producing a sulfide solid electrolyte, Abstract), the method comprising:
a step of wet-pulverizing a slurry (Ohashi, wet mechanical milling was performed at a predetermined rotation and revolution speed for a predetermined time to pulverize the raw material and obtain a sulfide solid electrolyte material, [0054]) containing a lithium-ion conductive sulfide (Ohashi, lithium sulfide and diphosphorus pentasulfide, [0052]), an organic solvent (Ohashi, dehydrated heptane, [0052]), and an ester compound (Ohashi, ester compound is used as the additive, [0027]), the lithium-ion conductive sulfide containing elemental lithium (Li), elemental phosphorus (P), and elemental sulfur (S) sulfide (Ohashi, lithium sulfide and diphosphorus pentasulfide, [0052]), wherein the ester compound is an ester compound of a carboxylic acid and an alcohol (Gadewar, ethyl acetate is produced by the esterification of acetic acid with ethanol, [0004]).
Regarding Claim 9, Ohashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ohashi discloses a sulfide solid electrolyte (Ohashi, sulfide solid electrolyte, Abstract), wherein the organic solvent is at least one of an aromatic hydrocarbon and an aliphatic hydrocarbon (Ohashi, examples of hydrocarbon solvents that can be used include aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzene, [0018]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (filed 05/16/2025) with respect to Claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the ester compounds are only used in one example, and Ohashi further lists other additives such as ether compounds and nitrile compounds. Thus, the use of ester compounds in Ohashi is not required.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Ohashi discloses that the ester compound is intentionally used in an embodiment, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an ester can be used as an additive while routinely designing the sulfide solid electrolyte of Ohashi.
Applicant argues that the ester compounds are used as dispersants during wet milling and do not remain in the final product, so the amount of ester compound in a sulfide solid electrolyte is theoretically zero. Therefore, Ohashi does not disclose that the total amount of the ester compound and the organic solvent is 0.1 mass% or more and 1.5 mass% or less.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the methods in producing the sulfide solid electrolyte of Ohashi is substantially similar to the method in producing the instantly claimed sulfide solid electrolyte, especially in regards to the inclusion of the ester. As demonstrated in Example 1, [0052-0053] of the Instant Specification, a disintegrated fired product comprising a Li2S powder, a P2S5 powder, a LiCl power, and a LiBr powder was mixed with toluene and butyl acetate, wherein butyl acetate was added in an amount of 3 mass% with respect to 100 parts by mass of the lithium-ion conductive sulfide, and after wet pulverization, the slurry was subjected to solid-liquid separation, the solid was dried, and passed through a sieve to obtain a solid electrolyte.
Ohashi discloses a crystallized coarse-grained raw material comprising Li2S, P2S5, and LiI combined with dehydrated heptane and an additive, such as an ester combined in an amount of 1% by weight or more, were wet milled, and heated on a hot plate heated to 180 oC for 2 hours (Ohashi, [0027, 0052-0055]).
Both the Instant Application’s method and Ohashi’s method comprise of a heating/drying step after wet pulverizing a slurry comprising a slurry and an additive, or ester. Ohashi discloses that the heating/drying step is intended to evaporate the liquid of the slurry which would remove the solvent and additives (Ohashi, [0032]). However, it is reasonably expected that there would still be some additives, or ester remaining in the sulfide solid electrolyte of Ohashi, especially since the sulfide solid electrolyte of the Instant Application still contains ester after solid-liquid extraction, drying, and filtration. Thus, the mass% of additive, or ester, remaining in the sulfide solid electrolyte of Ohashi would reasonably overlap the claimed total amount of the ester compound and the organic solvent is 0.1 mass% or more and 1.5 mass% or less.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20190081353 A1 discloses a sulfur compound solid electrolyte comprising an ester-based solvent (Claims 7 and 10).
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 KEVIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:50 - 7:50 ET.
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, NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752