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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 02/17/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Claims 1-11 have been withdrawn from consideration.
The amendments and remarks filed are sufficient to cure the previous 35 U.S.C 112(b) set forth in the Non-Final office action mailed on 11/18/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claim(s) 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (Chemistry of Materials, 2018) in view of Phuc et al. (Solid State Ionics, 2016) and further in view of Totsuka et al. (Pub. No. US 20220285724 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Wang teaches a solid state electrolyte (sulfide-based solid electrolyte, see pg. 991, para. 3) comprising lithium phosphate sulfide (Li7P3S11 powder, see pg. 991, para. 4) prepared by a method comprising: combining precursors (Li2S and P2S5, see pg. 991, para. 4) comprising Li.sub.2S (Li2S, see pg. 991, para. 4) and P.sub.2S.sub.5 (P2S5, see pg. 991, para. 4) having a molar ratio of 7:3 (70:30, see pg. 995, para. 5) with a solvent (acetonitrile, see pg. 991, para. 4) to provide a composition (mixture, see pg. 991, para. 4); mixing the composition (mixture, see pg. 991, para. 4) at a dissolving temperature (50oC, see pg. 991, para. 4) for an effective period of time (3 days, see pg. 991, para. 4); evaporating the solvent (acetonitrile, see pg. 991, para. 4 where solvent was allowed to evaporate) at an evaporating temperature (150oC, see pg. 991, para. 4) to produce a solid composition (DP, see pg. 991, para. 4, see Fig. 1(a) the DP sample is a solid powder); and heating the solid composition (DP, see pg. 991, para. 4 where DP is heated at 260oC) at a heating temperature from 260° C. to 280° C (260oC, see pg. 991, para. 4) for 1 to 3 hours (1 hour, see pg. 991, para. 4) to produce the solid state electrolyte (sulfide-based solid electrolyte, see pg. 991, para. 3), wherein the lithium phosphate sulfide (Li7P3S11 powder, see pg. 991, para. 4) comprise Li.sub.7P.sub.3S.sub.11 (Li7P3S11 powder, see pg. 991, para. 4 the powder is Li7P3S11), but Wang is silent to the lithium phosphate sulfide being nanoparticles, having an average size of from 50 nm to 1000 nm, and fails to teach the solvent being ethyl acetate, the composition comprising 5 to 40 mg ml.sup.−1 of the precursors in the ethyl acetate, and fully dissolving the precursors and form a solution comprising 5 to 40 mg ml.sup.−1 of the precursors. See 112 rejection above for interpretation.
However, Phuc teaches the solvent (ethyl acetate medium, see pg. 240, para. 3) being ethyl acetate (see pg. 240, para. 3 and 4 where the solvent is ethyl acetate) and fully dissolving the precursors (Li2S and P2S5, see pg. 240, para. 4, see pg. 241, para. 5 where the XRD pattern showed no peaks originating from the raw materials, which are the precursors, showing all the precursors were dissolved).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang to substitute acetonitrile as taught by Wang for ethyl acetate as taught by Phuc because Phuc teaches ethyl acetate is an appropriate solvent to promote reaction between Li2S and P2S5 (see additional page, the first highlight) and completely dissolves the precursors (Li2S and P2S5, see pg. 240, para. 4, see pg. 241, para. 5 where the XRD pattern showed no peaks originating from the raw materials, which are the precursors, showing all the precursors were dissolved) hence the substitution is an art effective equivalent solvent that will yield the same predictable results of promoting reaction between Li2S and P2S5 (see additional page, the first highlight) and completely dissolving the precursors ((Li2S and P2S5, see pg. 240, para. 4, see pg. 241, para. 5 where the XRD pattern showed no peaks originating from the raw materials, which are the precursors, showing all the precursors were dissolved).
Wang in view of Phuc is silent to the lithium phosphate sulfide being nanoparticles, having an average size of from 50 nm to 1000 nm, and fails to teach the composition comprising 5 to 40 mg ml.sup.−1 of the precursors in the ethyl acetate, a solution comprising 5 to 40 mg ml.sup.−1 of the precursors.
However, Totsuka teaches lithium phosphate sulfide (Li.sub.7P.sub.3S.sub.11, see [0035] where the sulfide solid electrolyte is Li.sub.7P.sub.3S.sub.11, see [0050] where the solid electrolyte comprises a sulfide solid electrolyte with a surfactant on surface) being nanoparticles (see [0054] where the d50 of the solid electrolyte is 2 microns to 0.1 microns, the examiner would like to note the solid electrolyte comprises particles with a surfactant on the surface, however the size range taught is overlapping, and the particle size of the lithium phosphate particles themselves would be smaller than the total particle size), having an average size of from 50 nm to 1000 nm (2 microns to 0.1 microns, see [0054]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang in view of Phuc such that the lithium phosphate sulfide particles have an average particles size of 0.1 microns to 2 microns as taught by Totsuka to suppress generation of hydrogen sulfide and coarsening of particles (see [0008] of Totsuka) and further it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the range to stay within the claimed range a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I) and Totsuka teaches particle size is a result effective variable of interfacial resistance between the electrolyte layer and an electrode agent (see [0003]), and generation of hydrogen sulfide (see [0007]).
Wang in view of Phuc and further in view of Totsuka fails to teach the composition comprising 5 to 40 mg ml.sup.−1 of the precursors in the ethyl acetate and forming a solution comprising 5 to 40 mg ml.sup.−1 of the precursors. However, it should be noted that in a product-by-process claim it is the patentability of the product and not the recited process steps which must be established (see MPEP 2113.I). Further it is the Examiner’s position that Wang in view of Phuc and further in view of Totsuka teaches the product limitations of claim 12 (see rejection above).
Regarding claim 13, Wang in view of Phuc and further in view of Totsuka fails to explicitly teach wherein the lithium phosphate sulfide nanoparticles have an average size of from 100 nm to 1000 nm.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang in view of Phuc in view of Totsuka such that the particle size of the Li7P3S11 powder is within the claimed range as Totsuka teaches particle size is a result effective variable of interfacial resistance between the electrolyte layer and an electrode agent (see [0003]), and generation of hydrogen sulfide (see [0007]).
Regarding claim 14, Wang in view of Phuc and further in view of Totsuka teaches further
comprising amorphous lithium phosphate sulfide (see pg. 993, para. 3, the conversion did not consume the SP coating completely as some amorphous coverage was observed in sample DP-260).
Regarding claim 15, Wang in view of Phuc and further in view of Totsuka teaches wherein the solid state electrolyte (sulfide-based solid electrolyte, see pg. 991, para. 3) comprises from 80 wt % to 99.99 wt % of Li.sub.7P.sub.3S.sub.11 (Li7P3S11 powder, see pg. 991, para. 4 the powder is Li7P3S11, see Fig. 3, DP-260 graph shows the sample peaks correspond to Li7P3S11, and as seen on pg. 993, para. 3 a small amount of amorphous phase is still present, therefore close to 100% of the powder is Li7P3S11).
Regarding claim 16, Wang in view of Phuc and further in view of Totsuka teaches wherein the solid state electrolyte (sulfide-based solid electrolyte, see pg. 991, para. 3) has a Li.sup.+ conductivity of at least 0.7 mS cm.sup.−1 (0.87 mS/cm, see pg. 995, para. 5).
Regarding claim 17, Wang in view of Phuc and further in view of Totsuka teaches wherein the solid state electrolyte (sulfide-based solid electrolyte, see pg. 991, para. 3) has a Li.sup.+ conductivity of from 0.7 mS cm.sup.−1 to 1.5 mS cm.sup.−1 (0.87 mS/cm, see pg. 995, para. 5).
Regarding claim 18, Wang in view of Phuc and further in view of Totsuka teaches the dissolving temperature is from 40° C. to 60° C. (50oC, see pg. 991, para. 4); the effective period of time is at least 1 hour (3 days, see pg. 991, para. 4); and the heating temperature is 260°C (260oC, see pg. 991, para. 4), but is silent to the lithium phosphate sulfide nanoparticles having an average particle size of from 100 nm to 500 nm, and fails to teach the composition comprises from 10 mg ml.sup.−1 to 20 mg ml.sup.−1 of the precursors; and the evaporating temperature is from 80° C. to 100° C..
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang in view of Phuc in view of Totsuka such that the particle size of the Li7P3S11 powder is within the claimed range as Totsuka teaches particle size is a result effective variable of interfacial resistance between the electrolyte layer and an electrode agent (see [0003]), and generation of hydrogen sulfide (see [0007]).
Wang in view of Phuc and further in view of Totsuka fails to teach the composition comprises from 10 mg ml.sup.−1 to 20 mg ml.sup.−1 of the precursors; and the evaporating temperature is from 80° C. to 100° C.. However, it should be noted that in a product-by-process claim it is the patentability of the product and not the recited process steps which must be established (see MPEP 2113.I). Further it is the Examiner’s position that Wang in view of Phuc and further in view of Totsuka teaches the product limitations of claim 18 (see rejection above).
Regarding claim 19, Wang in view of Phuc and further in view of Totsuka fails to teach (i) the nanoparticles of lithium phosphate sulfide are prepared from a solution comprising 10 mg ml.sup.−1 of the precursors and the nanoparticles have an average particle size of from 100 nm to 120 nm; or (ii) the nanoparticles of lithium phosphate sulfide are prepared from a solution comprising 20 mg ml.sup.−1 of the precursors and the nanoparticles have an average particle size of from 150 nm to 450 nm.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang in view of Phuc in view of Totsuka such that the particle size of the Li7P3S11 powder is within the claimed range as Totsuka teaches particle size is a result effective variable of interfacial resistance between the electrolyte layer and an electrode agent (see [0003]), and generation of hydrogen sulfide (see [0007]).
Wang in view of Phuc and further in view of Totsuka fails to teach (i) the nanoparticles of lithium phosphate sulfide are prepared from a solution comprising 10 mg ml.sup.−1 of the precursors or (ii) the nanoparticles of lithium phosphate sulfide are prepared from a solution comprising 20 mg ml.sup.−1 of the precursors. However, it should be noted that in a product-by-process claim it is the patentability of the product and not the recited process steps which must be established (see MPEP 2113.I). Further it is the Examiner’s position that Wang in view of Phuc and further in view of Totsuka teaches the product limitations of claim 19 (see rejection above).
Regarding claim 20, Wang in view of Phuc and further in view of Totsuka teaches wherein: (i) the solid state electrolyte (sulfide-based solid electrolyte, see pg. 991, para. 3) has a Li.sup.+ conductivity of at least 0.7 mS cm.sup.−1 (0.87 mS/cm, see pg. 995, para. 5); or (ii) the nanoparticles of lithium phosphate sulfide are prepared from a solution comprising 20 mg ml.sup.−1 of the precursors and the solid state electrolyte has a Li.sup.+ conductivity of at least 1.05 mS cm.sup.−1, but fails to teach wherein the nanoparticles of lithium phosphate sulfide are prepared from a solution comprising 10 mg ml.sup.−1 of the precursors.
However, it should be noted that in a product-by-process claim it is the patentability of the product and not the recited process steps which must be established (see MPEP 2113.I). Further it is the Examiner’s position that Wang in view of Phuc and further in view of Totsuka teaches the product limitations of claim 20 (see rejection above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Phuc does not suggest that Li7P3S11 nanoparticles could be produced in EA. This argument is moot as the Examiner did not use Phuc to suggest that Li7P3S11 nanoparticles could be produced in EA, and instead used Phuc to teach another solvent known in the art which can promote reaction between Li2S and P2S5.
Regarding applicants’ argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the XRD pattern provided by Phuc would not show all the precursors were dissolved and that only the final product contained no residual starting materials. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as first it is not for the applicant to determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would infer or understand from the prior art. Further, as seen in page 240, paragraph 4-5 shows after reaction the solid phase was evacuated at room temperature and then examined under XRD. Therefore, if there was any precursors which were not dissolved in the EA, it would have remained in the solid phase and been present in the XRD pattern of c in Fig. 2.
Regarding applicants’ argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would infer the starting materials were not fully dissolved because the reaction mixture disclosed by Phuc required substantial mixing presumably to keep the insoluble starting materials from settling out and therefore EA is not an art effective equivalent solvent. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as there is no disclosure in Phuc that describes the mixing process as abnormal or substantial or required to keep the insoluble starting materials from settling out. Further, the Examiner did not use Phuc to teach mixing or reaction time and instead used Phuc to teach EA is solvent known in the art which can promote reaction between Li2S and P2S5 and would therefore be an art effective equivalent solvent for that similar purpose.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the reaction taught by Totsuka does not result in Li7P3S11 nanoparticles having an average size of from 50 nm to 1000 nm, as Totsuka teaches Li7P3S11 as an alternative to an argyrodite-type crystal structure. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as the Li7P3S11 may not be the most preferred embodiment of the sulfide solid electrolyte taught by Totsuka it is an embodiment of the sulfide solid electrolyte taught by Totsuka as seen in [0035]. Further, the Examiner did not use Totsuka to teach a specific reaction method, but rather a particle size of the sulfide solid electrolyte which being an aspect of the particles helps achieve the benefit of suppressing generation of hydrogen sulfide and coarsening of the particle diameter, and further Totsuka discloses in [0003] that pulverizing solid electrolyte and therefore reducing size, an electrolyte layer can be thinned and interfacial resistance between the electrolyte layer and an electrode agent can be reduced. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to understand the particle size taught by Totsuka has beneficial effects for Li7P3S11 solid electrolyte particles.
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 DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights