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 .
Applicant’s amendments were received on 10/21/25. Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 17-22 are withdrawn-currently amended. Claims 10 and 23 are currently amended. are new. Claims 15 is cancelled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action.
Affidavit
Applicant’s affidavit is received on 6/29/26 and have been considered.
Election/Restrictions
The Applicant’s reverted the claims as it was originally filed. The Elect/Restriction is withdrawn. Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 17-22 are reinstated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the limitation “wherein a molar ratio Li:I of lithium element (li) contained in the binder to iodine element (I) contained in the binder is from 9:2-3:6 is unsupported. The Applicants discloses supported in P42 and P43. Appropriate corrections or further clarification are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nguyen et al. (Fast Synthesis of Li2S-P2S5-LiI solid electrolyte precursors).
Regarding claim 1, the Nguyen reference discloses a process making and electrolyte comprising PS4 and constituent lithium, and reacting with LiI compound (Li3PS4; Introduction, third paragraph). The reaction discloses the raw materials are mixed by mechanical milling. The Nguyen reference is silent in disclosing a compound comprising a peak in Raman spectroscopy with disulfide bond between two phosphorus atoms, however, the Nguyen reference inherently teaches a peak in Raman spectroscopy with disulfide bond between two phosphorus atoms since the product is made from the same claimed process. 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Please see MPEP2112.01(I).
The recitation that binder has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self- contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951.).
Regarding claims 2, 18, the Nguyen reference discloses the LiI is selected from lithium.
Regarding claim 17, the Nguyen reference is silent in disclosing the peak in Ramn spectroscopy is in a range of 460-480 cm-1 and the compound has a second peak in Raman spectroscopy in a range of 390 to 420 cm-1 however, the Nguyen reference inherently teaches the peak in Ramn spectroscopy is in a range of 460-480 cm-1 and the compound has a second peak in Raman spectroscopy in a range of 390 to 420 cm-1 since the product is made from the same claimed process. 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Please see MPEP2112.01(I).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. (Fast Synthesis of Li2S-P2S5-LiI solid electrolyte precursors) in view of Kim et al. (US Publication 2007/0102039), on claims 10, 14-16 are withdrawn because the Applicant have amended the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nguyen et al. (Fast Synthesis of Li2S-P2S5-LiI solid electrolyte precursors) in view of Kawaoka et al. (WO2010064288)
Regarding claims 6-9, the Nguyen reference discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The Nguyen reference discloses that improved Li2S-P2S5 system with higher conductivities were explored for solid state batteries. The Kawaoka et al. reference discloses a broad teaching of Li2S-P2S5 electrolyte system are known to be used for solid state batteries. The Li2S-P2S5 electrolyte can be used in a composite electrode layer and as a binder to bind the components of the layer together. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the improved Li2S-P2S5 electrolyte system with higher conductivities as disclosed by the Nguyen et al. reference for the generic teaching of the Li2S-P2S5 electrolyte system for the electrode in an solid state battery disclosed by the Kawaoka et al. reference for an improved battery, since the electrode requires conductivity in order for electrochemical reactions to occur.
As a result, the improved Li2S-P2S5 electrolyte system as disclosed by the Nguyen et al. reference for the electrode of Kawaoka et al. functions as a binder.
Regarding claim 20 and 21, the modified Nguyen reference discloses the compound functions as a binder. The Nguyen reference is silent in disclosing the binder has peaks at 2θ = 25.2°, 2θ = 29.2° and further comprising 2θ = 49.9° in X-ray diffraction. However, the Nguyen reference inherently teaches the binder comprising peaks at 2θ = 25.2°, 2θ = 29.2° and further comprising 2θ = 49.9° in X-ray diffraction since the product is made from the same claimed process. 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Please see MPEP2112.01(I).
Claim(s) 10-12, 14-16, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. (Fast Synthesis of Li2S-P2S5-LiI solid electrolyte precursors) in view of Chen et al. (US Publication 2017/0162901).
Regarding claim 10, 14, the Nguyen et al. reference discloses a method of reacting a raw material compound comprising PS4 and constituent lithium and reacting with LiI compound (Li3PS4; Introduction, third paragraph). The Nguyen reference is silent in disclosing I2, however, the Chen et al. reference discloses that LiI and I2 can be used for the same purposes (P54, P122). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate I2 disclosed by the Chen et al. reference for LiI component disclosed by the Nguyen et al. reference, since the substitution of known equivalent structures involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Fout 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Susi 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). When a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. KSR v. Teleflex
In addition, the Nguyen reference discloses the raw materials are mixed with mechanical milling.
Regarding claim 15, the Nguyen et al. reference discloses wherein the raw material compound, and the oxidizing agent are reacted by one or more selected from the group consisting of physical energy, thermal energy, and chemical energy (Introduction, third paragraph).
Regarding claim 16, the Nguyen et al. reference discloses wherein the raw material compound, and the elemental halogen are reacted in a liquid (Introduction, third paragraph).
Regarding claim 23, the Nguyen in view of Kim et al. reference (herein referred to as modified Nguyen) discloses the molar ratio of the lithium constituent element and a PS4 structure and the elemental halogen is a 1:1 ratio.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The arguments pertaining to an oxidizing agent has been considered but moot since the limitation does not comprise “oxidizing agent.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 HELEN OI CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5162. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Nicholas Smith can be reached on 5712728760. 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.
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights