DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the June 18th, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”).
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/20/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received on June 18th, 2026:
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-18, and 21-25 are pending in the current application. Claims 9 and 10 are amended. The status markings of Claims 24 and 25 are corrected (see MPEP 1.121(c)(2)).
Claims 9 and 10 are amended to further limit the volume based average particle diameter of the crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte to 3 micrometers or more and 50 micrometers or less; and to further limit the specific surface area to 20 m2/g or more and 70 m2/g or less.
Claims 24 and 25 are correctly marked as “previously presented.” Therefore, the objections of Claims 24 and 25 are withdrawn.
No new matter has been introduced. Support for the amended limitations is found in the applicant’s disclosure including the originally filed specification (i.e., [0116], [0118]).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-18, and 21-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as described below:
Claims 1-2, 6, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Seino et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160104916 A1) in view of Umetsu et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190020034 A1, equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2017126682 A1) as further evidenced by Utsuno et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2018030436 A1).
Claims 3-4 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seino et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160104916 A1) in view of Umetsu et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190020034 A1, equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2017126682 A1), and further in view of Utsuno et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2018030436 A1).
Claims 9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seino et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160104916 A1) in view of Sato et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2013143297 A) as further evidenced by Jeong et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 3067979 A2).
Claims 10 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seino et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160104916 A1) in view of Sato et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2013143297 A) as further evidenced by Utsuno et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2018030436 A1) and Jeong et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 3067979 A2).
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seino et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160104916 A1) in view of Sato et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2013143297 A) and further in view of Ota (U.S. Pat. No. US 7901598 B2).
Cited Prior Art
Previously Cited Makino (W.O. Pat. No. 2017159666 A1) (“Makino”).
Previously Cited Utsuno et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2018030436 A1) (“Utsuno et al.”).
Previously Cited Ota (U.S. Pat. No. US 7901598 B2) (“Ota”).
Previously Cited Seino et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160104916 A1) (“Seino et al.”).
Zhang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180269528 A1) (“Zhang et al.”)
Uematsu et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160248121 A1) (“Uematsu et al.”)
Yamada et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150171431 A1) (“Yamada et al.”)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and the declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed on June 18th, 2026 have been fully considered as further described below:
Regarding Claim 1, applicant argues that reference Umetsu does not teach a TMEDA compound but rather teaches a metal complex of TMEDA; applicant provides convincing evidence in the filed declaration to establish that the TMEDA-metal complex does not have the ability to form a complex with the lithium element as claimed (see para. 5-6 of the “Declaration”). Regarding Claims 9 and 10, applicant provides convincing evidence in the declaration supporting that a particle size and specific surface area are directly correlated in which the particle size of Sato cannot be combined with the specific surface area of Jeong to produce the claimed sulfide based solid electrolyte (see para. 9-13 of the “Declaration”). Therefore, the declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 06/18/2026 is sufficient to overcome the rejection of Claims 1, 9, and 10 based upon Umetsu et al. U.S. Pat. No. 20190020034 A1, Sato et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2013143297 A) (“ Sato et al.”), and Jeong et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 3067979 A2); and the rejection of Claims 1, 9, and 10 and dependent Claims 2-4, 6, 11-18, and 21-25 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 7-11 of the "Remarks filed 06/18/2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180269528 A1), Uematsu et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160248121 A1), and Yamada et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150171431 A1) as described below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, 6, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Seino et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160104916 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180269528 A1) as further evidenced by Utsuno et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2018030436 A1) and Uematsu et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160248121 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Seino et al. teaches a method for producing a solid electrolyte for an electrode composition (electrode composite material) (Abstract, para. 98). Raw materials include an alkali metal sulfide preferably lithium sulfide (lithium element) and a sulfur compound such as phosphorus sulfide (phosphorus element, sulfur element) (para. 38-42, 57), forming a raw material inclusion. In a first step, the raw material inclusion is mixed in a solvent such as acetonitrile (capable of functioning as a complexing agent according to [0038] of applicant’s specification) forming a mixture analogous to an electrolyte precursor (para. 57,68). The electrolyte precursor can be heated to remove the solvent (para. 102) (further capable of decomplexing the electrolyte precursor, providing a decomplexed material). Further, the solid electrolyte (decomplexed material) is mixed with carbon (para. 98) in which can function as an electrode active material as further evident by Utsuno et al. Specifically, Utsuno et al. teaches mixing a sulfide solid electrolyte with a negative electrode active material comprising a carbon material (Utsuno et al., para. 42).
As Seino teaches heating the electrolyte precursor as described above, decomplexing the electrolyte precursor to provide a decomplexed material is a result thereof and is not given patentable weight. The claim limitation “to decomplex the electrolyte precursor and provide a decomplexed material” is considered a “whereby clause” and is the result of a process step positively recited . “The court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003))”(see MPEP 2111.04.I.).
Seino et al. does not teach that the complexing agent comprises a tertiary diamine comprising two tertiary amino groups.
Zhang et al. teaches an electrolyte composition for a lithium ion battery comprising tertiary amines as moisture removing additives such as tetramethylethylenediamine (TMEDA, a tertiary diamine comprising two tertiary amino groups) ([0139]).
The capability of the TMEDA forming a complex with the lithium element is based on the inherent properties thereof (in [0028] of the spec., applicant teaches that the complexing agent is not restricted as long as it is a compound containing an element that has high affinity to a lithium element and has such properties of binding with the lithium-containing structure; applicant teaches that TMEDA is an example of a suitable complexing agent having at least two hetero elements capable of coordinating in the molecule, [0029], [0032]). "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. (see MPEP 2112.01(II)). Therefore, the binding (complexing) capability of TMEDA is deemed an inherent property based on the structure thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the complexing agent of Seino et al. by Zhang et al. to include TMEDA (tetramethylethylenediamine) in which is a tertiary diamine comprising two tertiary amino groups and is capable of forming a complex with the lithium element based on inherent properties. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide an additive in which effectively removes water content of an electrolyte composition (Zhang et al., [0019]). As further support, Uematsu et al. is cited as evidence of the inherent binding properties of TMEDA and its use in an electrolytic solution specifically for its bonding (complexing) properties; Uematsu et al. teaches an electrolytic solution comprising a Lewis base in which can be an amine compound such as preferably TMEDA from the standpoint of cycle life ([0115]; [0106] teaches that a Lewis base contains an atom having a lone pair of electrons for chemical bonding and preferably contains at least one nitrogen-containing organic compound from the group consisting of an amine compound such as TMEDA from the standpoint of availability and handling).
Regarding Claim 2, Seino et al. is modified by Zhang et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Further, Seino et al. teaches the decomplexed material (sulfide solid electrolyte) being an amorphous sulfide solid electrolyte or a crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte (para. 46). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 6, Seino et al. is modified by Zhang et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Seino et al. further teaches the raw material inclusion further comprising a halogen compound (element) (para. 39-41). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claims 21-23, Seino et al. is modified by Zhang et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, the complexing agent of Seino et al. is modified by Zhang et al. to include TMEDA (tetramethylethylenediamine) in which is a tertiary diamine comprising two tertiary amino groups (as required by Claims 21 and 23) and an aliphatic tertiary diamine (as required by Claim 22). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide an additive in which effectively removes water content of an electrolyte composition (Zhang et al., [0019]); and to provide an electrolyte additive with complexing properties from the standpoint of cycle life, availability, and handling (Uematsu et al., [0115], [0106]).
Claims 3-4 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seino et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160104916 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180269528 A1), and further in view of Utsuno et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2018030436 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Seino et al. is modified by Zhang et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Seino et al. does not teach the mixing of the decomplexed material with the electrode active material using a solvent that does not dissolve the decomplexed material.
Utsuno et al. teaches mixing a solid electrolyte and a negative electrode active material in an organic solvent in which the solvent is removed (para. 48). Therefore, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the organic solvent does not dissolve the particles of the mixture including the solid electrolyte.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of producing a sulfide solid electrolyte of Seino et al. in which the mixing of the decomplexed material with the electrode active material is performed using an organic solvent and the solvent is removed as taught by Utsuno et al., without dissolving the solid electrolyte or decomplexed material. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Utsuno et al. useful to determine an effective method of preparing a negative electrode mixture in which the particles are not destroyed (Utsuno et al., para. 48).
Regarding Claim 4, Seino et al. is modified by Zhang et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Seino et al. does not teach the mixing of the decomplexed material with the electrode active material performed with an apparatus of a pulverizer or an agitator.
Utsuno et al. teaches the mixing of the decomplexed material with the electrode active material performed with an apparatus such as a ball mill or bead mill in which are types of agitators (para. 48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of producing a solid electrolyte of Seino et al. to include performing the mixing of the decomplexed material with the electrode active material using an agitator such as ball mill or bead mill as taught by Utsuno et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Utsuno et al. useful to determine a mixing method of a solid electrolyte and negative electrode active material in which particle quality is maintained (Utsuno et al., para. 48).
Regarding Claims 24 and 25, Seino et al. is modified by Zhang et al. and Utsuno et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 3 above. As applied to Claim 3, the method of producing a sulfide solid electrolyte of Seino et al. is modified by Utsuno et al. in which the mixing of the decomplexed material with the electrode active material is performed using an organic solvent and the solvent is removed as taught by Utsuno et al., without dissolving the solid electrolyte or decomplexed material. As applied to Claim 1, Seino et al. teaches the use of an organic solvent such as acetonitrile (para. 71). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize acetonitrile as the organic solvent in the modification by Utsuno et al., as acetonitrile is an organic nitrile-based solvent, meeting the limitations of Claims 24 and 25. "The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)" (MPEP 2144.07). It is within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art to select a suitable organic solvent such as acetonitrile based on its suitability in electrode/electrolyte manufacturing as disclosed by Seino et al.
Claims 9-10 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seino et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160104916 A1) in view of Yamada et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150171431 A1) as further evidenced by Utsuno et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2018030436 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Seino et al. an electrode composite material comprising a crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte and an electrode active material (carbon) (para. 5, 98, 100) in which the alkali metal sulfide (lithium sulfide) particle size is measured by the laser diffraction (particle size distribution) method from the volume based average particle diameter and a specific surface is measured by the BET method (para. 91-92). As further evidence, Utsuno et al. teaches mixing a sulfide solid electrode with a negative electrode active material forming an electrode composite material (para. 42).
Seino et al. is silent to the particle diameter and specific surface area of the final crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte.
Yamada et al. teaches a sulfide-based solid electrolyte comprising an average particle diameter of preferably about 5 μm to about 50 μm to provide a suitable ionic conductivity; and a specific surface area measured by using a specific surface area measuring instrument of 1 m2/g or more (at least 1 m2/g) to improve the ion conduction path ([0077]-[0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sulfide solid electrolyte of Seino et al. to include a particle diameter of 5 μm to about 50 μm micrometers as taught by Yamada et al., within the claimed range of 3 to 50 micrometers; and a specific surface area of 1 m2/g or more, overlapping the claimed range of 20 to 70 m2/g (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). Further, a skilled artisan would utilize common methods to observe said particle diameter and specific surface area; it would further be obvious to utilize the suitable methods already disclosed in primary reference Seino et al. as described above (i.e., laser diffraction (particle size distribution) method calculated from the volume based average particle diameter, BET method, para. 91-92) for simplicity. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification by Yamada et al. to provide a suitable ionic conductivity and to improve the ion conduction path as described above.
Regarding Claim 10, Seino et al. teaches a crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte (para. 5, 100) in which the alkali metal sulfide (lithium sulfide) particle size is measured by the laser diffraction (particle size distribution) method from the volume based average particle diameter and a specific surface is measured by the BET method (para. 91-92). Further, Seino et al. teaches mixing the solid electrolyte with an electrode active material (carbon) to form an electrode composite material (para. 98). As further evidence, Utsuno et al. teaches mixing a sulfide solid electrolyte with a negative electrode active material comprising a carbon material (Utsuno et al., para. 42). Seino et al. teaches the crystalline sulfide-based electrolyte being produced by placing the mixture in flask with a stirrer, analogous to mechanically treating the mixture (para. 95).
Seino et al. is silent to the particle diameter and specific surface area of the final crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte.
Yamada et al. teaches a sulfide-based solid electrolyte comprising an average particle diameter of preferably about 5 μm to about 50 μm to provide a suitable ionic conductivity; and a specific surface area measured by using a specific surface area measuring instrument of 1 m2/g or more (at least 1 m2/g) to improve the ion conduction path ([0077]-[0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sulfide solid electrolyte of Seino et al. to include a particle diameter of 5 μm to about 50 μm micrometers as taught by Yamada et al., within the claimed range of 3 to 50 micrometers; and a specific surface area of 1 m2/g or more, overlapping the claimed range of 20 to 70 m2/g (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). Further, a skilled artisan would utilize common methods to observe said particle diameter and specific surface area; it would further be obvious to utilize the suitable methods already disclosed in primary reference Seino et al. as described above (i.e., laser diffraction (particle size distribution) method calculated from the volume based average particle diameter, BET method, para. 91-92) for simplicity. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification by Yamada et al. to provide a suitable ionic conductivity and to improve the ion conduction path as described above.
Regarding Claim 12, Seino et al. is modified by Yamada et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 9 above. Seino et al. teaches the crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte containing a lithium element, a sulfur element, and a phosphorus element (para. 99).
Regarding Claim 13, Seino et al. is modified by Yamada et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 9 above. Seino et al. teaches the crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte containing a lithium element, a sulfur element, phosphorus element, and halogen element (bromine) (para. 99).
Regarding Claim 14, Seino et al. is modified by Yamada et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 9 above. Seino et al. teaches the crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte containing a thio-LISICON Region II-type crystal structure.
Regarding Claim 16, Seino et al. is modified by Yamada et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 10 above. Seino et al. teaches the crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte containing a lithium element, a sulfur element, and a phosphorus element (para. 99).
Regarding Claim 17, Seino et al. is modified by Yamada et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 10 above. Seino et al. teaches the crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte containing a lithium element, a sulfur element, phosphorus element, and halogen element (bromine) (para. 99).
Regarding Claim 18, Seino et al. is modified by Yamada et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 10 above. Seino et al. teaches the crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte containing a thio-LISICON Region II-type crystal structure.
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seino et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160104916 A1) in view of Yamada et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150171431 A1), and further in view of Ota (U.S. Pat. No. US 7901598 B2).
Claim 11 is dependent on Claim 9 and Claim 15 is dependent on Claim 10.
Regarding Claims 11 and 15, Seino et al. is modified by Yamada et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claims 9 and 10 above, respectively.
Seino et al. does not teach the crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte having a half-value width of the maximum peak in the X-ray diffractometry including the background in 2θ = 10 to 40° using CuKα line of Δ2θ = 0.75° or less.
Ota teaches a crystalline compound comprising lithium, phosphorus, and sulfur formed in the solid electrolyte, analogous to a crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte (Description para. 29). The solid electrolyte is heated such that the apexes (maximums) of the X-ray diffraction peaks have a half-width (Δ2θ) of 0.5 degrees or less, falling within the claimed range of 0.75 degrees or less (Description para. 27) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). Further, the apexes or maximum peak of the X-ray diffraction peaks using a Kα ray of Cu exist at diffraction angles 2θ of 16.7 to 51.2 ± 0.25 degrees, overlapping and within the claimed range of 10 to 40 degrees (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). It is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the half-value width (Δ2θ) of the maximum includes the background.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte of Seino et al. to include a half-width (Δ2θ) value of the apexes or maximums of the X-ray diffraction peaks equal to 0.5 degrees or less using a Kα ray of Cu at diffraction angles 2θ equal to 16.7 to 51.2 ± 0.25 degrees, in which the background is included, as taught by Ota. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Ota useful in determining a solid electrolyte which is excellent in ion conductivity and resistance to an oxidation-reduction reaction (Ota, Description para. 29).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 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, ULA RUDDOCK can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights