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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/16/2026 has been entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification refers to “Fig. 2D” (Pg. 12, line 8), yet there is no Fig. 2D. Based on the description of the drawings (Pg. 3, lines 23-26), this is a typographical error which should read “Fig. 2C”.
The specification refer to “LPSBI” (e.g. Pg. 10, line 24). The first time this abbreviation is used, it should be preceded by the exact chemical formula to clarify which SSE is being used (e.g. the exact molar relationship of Br:I).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 19, 24, 39-40, 51 and 53 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 19, 24, 51 and 53 each recite, “1-brompentane, 2-Bromopentane, 3-Bromopentane…” (emphasis added). Claims 39 and 40 each recite “1-bromopentane”. To increase consistency and clarity, each of the recited halogenated alkanes should apply consistent capitalization.
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.
Claims 45 and 49-51 are 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.
Claim 45 recites:
“A material comprising an already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte surface and an interphase layer… wherein a hydrophilic head of the amphipathic surface protective agent is anchored to a surface of the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte, wherein the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte material is…” (emphasis added).
The Examiner notes that the initial recitation is for a material comprising a solid-state electrolyte “surface”. Therefore, there is no antecedent basis for the later recitations of “the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte” or “the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte material”. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the later recitation of “a surface of the already-formed sulfide containing solid state electrolyte” is meant to refer to the previously recited surface, or if it’s meant to introduce a new, distinct surface. Accordingly, Claim 45 and dependent Claims 49-51 are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, this limitation will be interpreted as “A material comprising an already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte and an interface layer…” as supported by the language of the other independent claims (e.g. Claim 47). Additionally, it will be interpreted that the limitation “the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte material” should read “the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte ” as supported by similar language in the other independent clams (e.g. Claim 47).
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.
Claim(s) 19, 21, 24, 26-27 and 37-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou et al. (US-20210050157-A1) in view of Ueba et al. (WO-2013153693-A1).
Regarding Claims 19 and 24, Hou discloses a solid-state electrolyte material [0033-0034, 0039]. The solid-state electrolyte material can be selected from a list of materials which include inorganic sulfide-based electrolyte materials [0034].
Therefore, although not disclosed in a specific embodiment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the solid-state electrolyte to be a sulfide-containing solid electrolyte (reads on an already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte) with a reasonable expectation that such a material would result in a successful solid electrolyte.
Hou discloses that solid electrolyte particles (706, Fig. 9) can be included in a separator slurry composition (702, Fig. 9) [0056]. The slurry includes a solvent (708, Fig. 9) which may be “any suitable solvent including, but not limited to, NMP or DMSO” [0056]. The separator slurry is deposited onto the electrodes and dried to remove the solvent [0056]. Hou does not disclose an amphipathic surface protective agent as claimed.
Ueba teaches that the solvent used to prepare a slurry containing sulfide solid electrolyte particles is not particularly limited so long as it does not react with the sulfide solid electrolyte material (Pg. 19: bottom - Pg. 20: first paragraph). As specific examples, Ueba teaches, among other options, halogenated hydrocarbons (Pg. 20: first paragraph). The Examiner notes that this establishes halogenated hydrocarbons as suitable solvents for forming a slurry comprising sulfide solid electrolyte particles (MPEP 2144.07).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the slurry of Hou to include a halogenated hydrocarbon as a solvent with a reasonable expectation that such a solvent selection would result in a successful slurry for depositing sulfide-containing solid electrolyte particles (MPEP 2144.07).
Although modified Hou does not specifically teach that the hydrocarbon-based solvent is one of the claimed halogenated hydrocarbons (i.e. “1-bromopentane, 2-Bromopentane…”), the selection of the claimed amphipathic compounds is within the scope of “halogenated hydrocarbons” such that, absent persuasive evidence or argument to the contrary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any of the claimed amphipathic compounds with a reasonable expectation that such a selection would result in a successful solvent for forming a sulfide solid electrolyte slurry (MPEP 2144.08). Examiner further notes that many of the claimed halogenated hydrocarbons are commercially available (e.g. via MilliporeSigma) thereby evidencing their common use.
The halogenated hydrocarbon solvent rendered obvious by modified Hou corresponds to an “amphipathic surface protective agent” as required by Claims 19 and 24. Since modified Hou renders obvious that the solid electrolyte is dispersed in the solvent and then dried [Hou: 0056], it is understood that the solvent surrounds the solid electrolyte, thereby inherently coating the solid electrolyte in the solvent (i.e. amphipathic surface protective agent), as evidenced by the instant specification. Specifically, the instant specification evidences that the surface protective agent can be a liquid which is applied to the solid electrolyte surface via physical stir-mixing (instant specification: Pg. 7, lines 26-30; Pg. 8, lines 1-3; Pg. 10, lines 21-28), and that the amphipathic surface protective agent is “anchored on the surface of the SSE via Van der Waals force, forming an ultra-thin layer of protecting interphase” (instant specification: Pg. 5, lines 14-16). Since the modified Hou renders obvious a substantially similar process, it is understood that the halogenated hydrocarbon solvent inherently attaches via Van der Waals forces to the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte surface, thereby inherently forming “an already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte coated with an interphase layer comprising an amphipathic surface protective agent, wherein a hydrophilic head of the amphipathic surface protective agent is anchored to a surface of the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte” as required by Claims 19 and 24 (MPEP 2112.01, I). Accordingly, modified Hou renders obvious the “material” as required by Claim 19.
Hou further discloses a construct (solid-state battery; [0022, 0028]) comprising a cathode material and an anode material [0028-0029, 0031-0032] in addition to the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte coated with an amphipathic surface protective agent (see above; [0056]) as required by Claim 24.
Regarding Claim 21, modified Hou renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above. Hou discloses that the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte is in the form of a film shape [0039, 0056].
Regarding Claims 26-27, modified Hou renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above. Hou discloses that the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte coated with the amphipathic surface protective agent is in a film shape [0039, 0056], and that the solid-state electrolyte is interposed between a film comprising the cathode material and a film comprising the anode material [0022, 0039, 0053-0056].
Regarding Claims 37 and 38, modified Hou renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above, including that the surface of the sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte is coated with the amphipathic surface protective agent (see rejection of Claims 19 and 24 above). Since modified Hou renders obvious the use of a sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte as claimed, and since modified Hou renders obvious amphipathic surface protective agents which overlap in scope with those claimed, the material/construct are understood to inherently be air stable (MPEP 2112.01, I-II) as evidenced by the instant specification (instant specification: Pg. 5, lines 8-20, 28-32; Pg. 6, lines 1-3; Pg. 7, lines 12-20).
Regarding Claims 39 and 40, modified Hou renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above, including the use of a halogenated hydrocarbon as the amphipathic surface protective agent (see rejection of Claims 19 and 24, above). Although modified Hou does not specifically teach that the halogenated hydrocarbon is 1-bromopentane, the selection of 1-bromopentane is within the scope of “halogenated hydrocarbons” such that, absent persuasive evidence or argument to the contrary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected 1-bromopentane with a reasonable expectation that such a selection would result in a successful solvent for forming a sulfide solid-electrolyte slurry (MPEP 2144.08). The Examiner further notes that 1-bromopentane is commercially available (e.g. via MilliporeSigma), thereby evidencing its common use.
Regarding Claims 41-44, modified Hou renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above. Since modified Hou renders obvious a material/construct which is substantially similar to that disclosed in the instant application, it is understood that the amphipathic surface protective agent inherently forms a continuous layer of uniform thickness on the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte surface (MPEP 2112.01, I) as evidenced by the instant specification. Specifically, the instant specification evidences that the amphipathic surface protective agent is anchored on the surface of the SSE via Van der Waals force, forming an ultra-thin layer of protecting interphase (instant specification: Pg. 5, lines 14-16), wherein the layer has a uniform thickness of ≥0.1 nm (instant specification: Pg. 7, lines 6-8). Since the modified Hou renders obvious a SSE which is coated with an amphipathic surface protective agent via a substantially similar process, it is understand that the protective agent would inherently attach via Van der Waals force to the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte surface, thereby forming a continuous layer of uniform thickness as required by Claims 41-42, wherein the thickness is ≥0.1 nm as required by Claims 43-44.
Claim(s) 20, 28-29 and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou et al. (US-20210050157-A1) in view of Ueba et al. (WO-2013153693-A1), as applied to Claims 19 and 24 above, and in view of Kong et al. (US-20210020929-A1).
Regarding Claims 20, 28 and 32-33, modified Hou renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above. Hou discloses that numerous inorganic solids may be employed as the solid-state electrolyte including, from a list of materials, Garnet-type oxides such as Li7La3Zr2O12, antiperovskite-type oxides such as Li3OCl and Li3OBr, and sulfide-based electrolyte materials [0033-0034]. Modified Hou does not teach that the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte is one of the claimed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte materials as recited in Claims 20, 28 or 32-33.
Kong teaches a solid electrolyte material which can be applied to separators for use in all-solid batteries [0043]. The solid electrolyte can be selected to include, from a list of possible alternatives, Li7La3Zr2O12, Li3OCl1-xBrx, Li10GeP2S12, and Li7P2S8I [0050-0051]. The Examiner notes that this establishes Li10GeP2S12, and Li7P2S8I as successful substitutes to Li7La3Zr2O12, Li3OCl and Li3OBr (MPEP 2144.06, II), and successful sulfide-containing solid-state electrolytes for use in all-solid batteries (MPEP 2144.07).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the sulfide-containing solid electrolyte taught by modified Hou for Li7P2S8I as taught by Kong with a reasonable expectation that such a substitution would result in a successful sulfide-containing solid electrolyte (MPEP 2144.06, II; MPEP 2144.07). The use of Li7P2S8I is within the claimed materials (i.e. Li7P2S8X, wherein X=I) as recited in Claims 20, 28 and 32-33.
Regarding Claims 29 and 34, modified Hou renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Hou discloses that the material comprising the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte coated with the amphipathic surface protective agent can be in a film shape [0039, 0056] as required by Claims 29 and 34, and that the solid-state electrolyte is interposed between a film comprising the cathode material and a film comprising the anode material [0022, 0039, 0053-0056] as required by Claim 34.
Claim(s) 45 and 49-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou et al. (US-20210050157-A1) in view of Ueba et al. (WO-2013153693-A1) and in view of Kong et al. (US-20210020929-A1).
Regarding Claims 45 and 52, Hou discloses a solid-state electrolyte material [0033]. The solid-state electrolyte material can be selected from a list of materials which include inorganic sulfide-based electrolyte materials [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the solid-state electrolyte to be a sulfide-containing solid electrolyte (reads on an already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte) with a reasonable expectation that such a material would result in a successful solid electrolyte.
Hou discloses that solid electrolyte particles (706, Fig. 9) can be included in a separator slurry composition (702, Fig. 9) [0056]. The slurry includes a solvent (708, Fig. 9) which may be “any suitable solvent including, but not limited to, NMP or DMSO” [0056]. The separator slurry is deposited onto the electrodes and dried to remove the solvent [0056]. Hou does not disclose an amphipathic surface protective agent as claimed.
Ueba teaches that the solvent used to prepare a slurry containing sulfide solid electrolyte particles is not particularly limited so long as it does not react with the sulfide solid electrolyte material (Pg. 19: bottom - Pg. 20: first paragraph). As specific examples, Ueba teaches, among other options, halogenated hydrocarbons (Pg. 20: first paragraph). The Examiner notes that this establishes halogenated hydrocarbons as suitable solvents for forming a slurry comprising sulfide solid electrolyte particles (MPEP 2144.07).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the slurry of Hou to include a halogenated hydrocarbon as a solvent with a reasonable expectation that such a solvent selection would result in a successful slurry for depositing sulfide-containing solid electrolyte particles (MPEP 2144.07).
Although modified Hou does not specifically teach that the halogenated hydrocarbon-based solvent is one of the claimed halogenated hydrocarbons (i.e. CxH2x+1Br, CxH2x+1Cl, CxH2x+1I), the selection of the claimed amphipathic compounds is within the scope of “halogenated hydrocarbons” such that, absent persuasive evidence or argument to the contrary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any of the claimed amphipathic compounds with a reasonable expectation that such a selection would result in a successful solvent for use in forming a slurry (MPEP 2144.08).
The halogenated hydrocarbon solvent rendered obvious by modified Hou corresponds to an “amphipathic surface protective agent” as recited in Claims 45 and 52. Since modified Hou renders obvious that the solid electrolyte is dispersed in the solvent and then dried [Hou: 0056], it is understood that the solvent surrounds the solid electrolyte, thereby inherently coating the solid electrolyte in the solvent (i.e. amphipathic surface protective agent), as evidenced by the instant specification. Specifically, the instant specification evidences that the surface protective agent can be a liquid which is applied to the solid electrolyte surface via physical stir-mixing (instant specification: Pg. 7, lines 26-30; Pg. 8, lines 1-3; Pg. 10, lines 21-28), and that the amphipathic surface protective agent is “anchored on the surface of the SSE via Van der Waals force, forming an ultra-thin layer of protecting interphase” (instant specification: Pg. 5, lines 14-16). Since the modified Hou renders obvious a substantially similar process, it is understood that the halogenated hydrocarbon solvent would inherently attach via Van der Waals force to the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte surface, thereby inherently forming “a material comprising an already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte” having a coating layer comprising “an interphase layer comprising an amphipathic surface protective agent deposited on the electrolyte surface, wherein a hydrophilic head of the amphipathic surface protective agent is anchored to a surface of the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte” (MPEP 2112.01, I).
Hou discloses that numerous inorganic solids may be employed as the solid-state electrolyte including, from a list of materials, Garnet-type oxides such as Li7La3Zr2O12, antiperovskite-type oxides such as Li3OCl and Li3OBr, and sulfide-based electrolyte materials [0033-0034]. Modified Hou does not teach that the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte is one of the claimed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte materials.
Kong teaches a solid electrolyte material which can be applied to separators for use in all-solid batteries [0043]. The solid electrolyte can be selected to include, from a list of possible alternatives, Li7La3Zr2O12, Li3OCl1-xBrx, Li10GeP2S12, and Li7P2S8I [0050-0051]. The Examiner notes that this establishes Li10GeP2S12, and Li7P2S8I as successful substitutes to Li7La3Zr2O12, Li3OCl and Li3OBr (MPEP 2144.06, II), and successful sulfide-containing solid-state electrolytes for use in all-solid batteries (MPEP 2144.07).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the sulfide-containing solid electrolyte taught by modified Hou for Li10GeP2S12 or Li7P2S8I as taught by Kong with a reasonable expectation that such a substitution would result in a successful sulfide-containing solid electrolyte (MPEP 2144.06, II; MPEP 2144.07). These materials are within the list of materials as recited in Claims 45 and 52.
Regarding Claims 49-50, modified Hou renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above. The Examiner notes that the limitations of Claims 49 and 50 constitute product-by-process limitations (see MPEP 2113). Although the structure implied by the process in considered, patentability is based on the product itself. “If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (MPEP 2113, I).
Here, modified Hou teaches that a slurry comprising the sulfide-containing solid electrolyte particles and solvent (which reads on the amphipathic surface protective agent, see rejection of Claim 45, above) is applied to the electrodes, and then the solvent is removed from the slurry [Hou: 0056]. This is understood to result in a structure wherein the surface of the sulfide-containing solid electrolyte is coated with the solvent (i.e. amphipathic surface protective agent) as evidenced by the instant specification (instant specification: Pg. 10, lines 21-28; instant Fig. 1). The structure of the product of the prior art corresponds to the structure implied by depositing the amphipathic surface protective agent “via mixing a liquid form of the amphipathic surface protective agent with a powder of the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte and drying the mixture” as required by Claim 49.
Additionally, the structure rendered obvious by modified Hou appears to be the same as the structure implied by the process of Claim 50. Specifically, the instant specification indicates that there is no criticality to the method in which the surface protective agent is deposited onto the surface of the SSE, and that stir-mixing, spraying, chemical vapor deposition, molecular layer deposition and/or atomic layer deposition can be used interchangeably (instant specification: Pg. 7, lines 26-30).
Therefore, although modified Hou does not explicitly teach that the amphipathic surface protective agent is deposited “via spraying, chemical vapor deposition, molecular layer deposition, atomic layer deposition, or a combination thereof” as required by Claim 50, the structure implied by the claimed process (i.e. a SSE powder coated with an amphipathic surface protective agent) is rendered obvious by the modified Hou. Thus the limitations of Claim 50 are met.
Regarding Claims 51 and 53, modified Hou renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above, including that the amphipathic surface protective agent is a halogenated hydrocarbon (see rejection of Claims 45 and 52, above). Although modified Hou does not specifically teach that the hydrocarbon-based solvent is one of the claimed halogenated hydrocarbons (i.e. “1-bromopentane, 2-Bromopentane…”), the selection of the claimed amphipathic compounds is within the scope of “halogenated hydrocarbons” such that, absent persuasive evidence or argument to the contrary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any of the claimed amphipathic compounds with a reasonable expectation that such a selection would result in a successful solvent for forming a sulfide-containing solid electrolyte slurry (MPEP 2144.08). Examiner further notes that many of the claimed halogenated hydrocarbons are commercially available, thereby evidencing their common use.
Claim(s) 47-48 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou et al. (US-20210050157-A1) in view Kubo et al. (US-20160028107-A1) and in view of Kong et al. (US-20210020929-A1).
Regarding Claims 47-48 and 52, Hou discloses a solid-state electrolyte material [0033, 0056]. The solid-state electrolyte material can be selected from a list of materials which include inorganic sulfide-based electrolyte materials [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the solid-state electrolyte to be a sulfide-containing solid electrolyte (reads on an already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte) with a reasonable expectation that such a material would result in a successful solid electrolyte.
Hou discloses that solid electrolyte particles (706, Fig. 9) can be included in a separator slurry composition (702, Fig. 9) [0056]. The slurry includes a solvent (708, Fig. 9) which may be “any suitable solvent including, but not limited to, NMP or DMSO” [0056]. The separator slurry is deposited onto the electrodes and dried to remove the solvent [0056]. Hou does not disclose an amphipathic surface protective agent as claimed.
Kubo teaches that when a solvent reacts with a sulfide solid electrolyte, lithium ion conductivity is decreased [0006-0007, 0010]. Kubo teaches that dibutyl ether has low reactivity with sulfide solid electrolytes, can be effectively used as a solvent constituting a slurry, and can successfully replace NMP as a solvent used to form a slurry comprising sulfide solid electrolyte particles [0011, 0115].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the slurry of Hou to include dibutyl ether as a solvent with a reasonable expectation that such a solvent selection would result in a successful slurry for depositing sulfide-containing solid electrolyte particles (MPEP 2144.06, II; MPEP 2144.07).
The solvent rendered obvious by modified Hou corresponds to an “amphipathic surface protective agent” (i.e. R1OR2, wherein R1 and R2 are each independently CxH2x+1 (x=4)) as required by Claims 47 and 52. Since modified Hou renders obvious that the solid electrolyte is dispersed in the solvent and then dried [Hou: 0056], it is understood that the solvent surrounds the solid electrolyte, thereby inherently coating the solid electrolyte in the solvent (i.e. amphipathic surface protective agent), as evidenced by the instant specification (MPEP 2112.01, I). Specifically, the instant specification evidences that the surface protective agent can be a liquid which is applied to the solid electrolyte surface via physical stir-mixing (instant specification: Pg. 7, lines 26-30; Pg. 8, lines 1-3; Pg. 10, lines 21-28), and that the amphipathic surface protective agent is “anchored on the surface of the SSE via Van der Waals force, forming an ultra-thin layer of protecting interphase” (instant specification: Pg. 5, lines 14-16). Since the modified Hou renders obvious a substantially similar product, it is understood that the protective agent would inherently attach via Van der Waals force to the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte surface, thereby inherently forming “an already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte” coated with / having a coating layer comprising “an interphase layer comprising an amphipathic surface protective agent, wherein a hydrophilic head of the amphipathic surface protective agent is anchored to a surface of the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte” as required by Claims 47 and 52 (MPEP 2112.01, I). Accordingly, modified Hou renders obvious the “material” as required by Claim 52.
Hou further discloses a construct (solid-state battery; [0022, 0028]) comprising a cathode material and an anode material [0028-0029, 0031-0032] in addition to the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte coated with an amphipathic surface protective agent (see above; [0056]) as required by Claim 47.
Although modified Hou does not explicitly teach that the interphase layer is “a continuous layer of uniform thickness” as required by Claim 47, or that “the continuous layer has a thickness of ≥ 0.1 nm” as required by Claim 48, modified Hou is understood to render obvious a coated solid-state electrolyte which is substantially similar to that disclosed in the instant application, and therefore inherently has a continuous layer of uniform thickness of protective agent, wherein the thickness is less than 0.1 nm, as evidenced by the instant specification (MPEP 2112.01, I). Specifically, the instant specification evidences that the amphipathic surface protective agent is anchored on the surface of the SSE via Van der Waals force, forming an ultra-thin layer of protecting interphase (instant specification: Pg. 5, lines 14-16), wherein the layer is a continuous layer of a uniform thickness of ≥0.1 nm (instant specification: Pg. 7, lines 6-8). Since the modified Hou renders obvious a SSE which is coated with an amphipathic surface protective agent, it is understand that the protective agent would inherently form a continuous layer of uniform thickness as required by Claim 47, wherein the thickness is ≥0.1 nm as required by Claim 48.
Hou discloses that numerous inorganic solids may be employed as the solid-state electrolyte including, from a list of materials, Garnet-type oxides such as Li7La3Zr2O12, antiperovskite-type oxides such as Li3OCl and Li3OBr, and sulfide-based electrolyte materials [0033-0034]. Modified Hou does not teach that the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte is one of the claimed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte materials.
Kong teaches a solid electrolyte material which can be applied to separators for use in all-solid batteries [0043]. The solid electrolyte can be selected to include, from a list of possible alternatives, Li7La3Zr2O12, Li3OCl1-xBrx, Li10GeP2S12, and Li7P2S8I [0050-0051]. The Examiner notes that this establishes Li10GeP2S12, and Li7P2S8I as successful substitutes to Li7La3Zr2O12, Li3OCl and Li3OBr (MPEP 2144.06, II) and successful sulfide-containing solid-state electrolytes for use in all-solid batteries (MPEP 2144.07).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the sulfide-containing solid electrolyte taught by modified Hou for Li10GeP2S12 or Li7P2S8I as taught by Kong with a reasonable expectation that such a substitution would result in a successful sulfide-containing solid electrolyte (MPEP 2144.06, II; MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant has argued that Anandan is directed towards a hybrid liquid/solid electrolyte for a rechargeable battery, wherein the solid electrolyte particle partially replace the liquid electrolyte to reduce flammability while avoiding substantial loss in cell performance (Remarks Pg. 8 of 11). The Applicant notes that Anandan’s hybrid electrolyte must remain sufficiently ionically conductive to maintain cell performance, and notes that replacing Anandan’s electrolyte with Wang’s electrolyte as proposed would result in a less conductive electrolyte as evidenced by Applicant’s specification and Figures (Remarks, Pgs. 8-9 of 11).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, and agrees that Applicant’s evidence (i.e. instant specification: Fig. 2C; Pg. 12, lines 8-10) demonstrates that solid electrolyte particles of LPSBI coated with 1-bromopentane have decreased ionic conductivity. However, the Examiner notes that the independent claims do not require the solid electrolyte to be LPSBI, or the solvent to be 1-bromopentane. Based on the submitted arguments and current evidence of record, it is unclear whether the decreased ionic conductivity would be expected for any solid electrolyte particles and/or any halogenated solvents, or whether the noted decrease in conductivity is exclusive to the combination of 1-bromopentance and LPSBI. Although the claims are currently not rejected over Anandan, Anandan is still considered relevant to the amended claims, absent further clarification.
Although the Examiner acknowledges that Claim 45 has been amended to remove ether solvents from the list of possible amphipathic surface protective agents, Hou still considered relevant to the amended claims in view of Ueba or Kubo, as laid out in the current rejections of record, above.
Other References Considered
You et al. (CN-122117904-A; see also attached NPL for citations), although not prior art under USC 102(a)(1) / 102(a)(2), is considered relevant to the claims (see Fig. 4; [0007-0009, 0095, 0101-0102]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 8/24/2026
Prosecution Insights