DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the December 5th, 2025 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/30/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received on December 5th, 2025:
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-18, and 21-25 are pending in the current application. Claims 5, 7-8, and 19-20 were cancelled. Clams 1 and 21 are amended. Claims 22-25 are newly added.
Claim 1 is amended to specify that the complexing agent comprises a tertiary diamine comprising two tertiary amino groups.
Claim 21 is amended to further limit the group in which the tertiary diamine comprising two tertiary amino groups is selected from.
Claim 22 is newly added to specify that the tertiary diamine comprising two tertiary amino groups is an aliphatic tertiary diamine.
Claim 23 is newly added to specify that the tertiary diamine comprising two tertiary amino groups is tetramethylethylenediamine.
Claim 24 is newly added to specify a limited group representing the solvent that does not dissolve the decomplexed material.
Claim 25 is newly added to specify that the solvent that does not dissolve the decomplexed material is an aromatic hydrocarbon solvent or a nitrile-based solvent.
Applicant’s amendment finds support in the disclosure including the originally filed claims and specification.
Applicant’s amendments have changed the scope of the invention and the new grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Claim Objections
Claims 24 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 24 and 25 are marked as "currently amended" but do not include markings to indicate the changes that have been made as required by MPEP 1.121(c)(2). Additionally, Claims 24 and 25 were not presented in the immediate prior version of the claims. Therefore, it appears that the appropriate marking should be "New." Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 24 and 25 are interpreted as newly added claims for examination purposes.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 and 9-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as described below:
Claims 1-2, 6, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Seino et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160104916 A1) as evidenced by Utsuno et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2018030436 A1). The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seino et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160104916 A1) in view of Utsuno et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2018030436 A1). The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seino et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160104916 A1) in view of Makino (W.O. Pat. No. 2017159666 A1). The rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
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). The rejections are maintained.
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). The rejections are maintained.
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). The rejections are maintained.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seino et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20160104916 A1) in view of in view of Chu et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 20120039447 A). The rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 5th, 2025 have been fully considered as further described below:
Applicant presents arguments to Claim 1 regarding the complexing agent comprising a tertiary diamine comprising two tertiary amino groups, in which are based on the claim as amended (see pg. 7 of the “Remarks”). Therefore, applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, applicant shows that the average particle size and specific surface area are correlated and argues that the suggested combination of references would not provide both an average particle diameter of 3 micrometers or more and a specific surface area of 20 m2/g or more (see pg. 9-10 of the “Remarks”).
“Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006)” (see MPEP 2143.01).
"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ" Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. (see MPEP 2141.03.I).
The sulfide solid electrolyte of Seino et al. is modified by Sato et al. to include a particle diameter within the claimed range of 3 micrometers or more. Applicant suggests that the average particle diameter cited is of the composite materials rather than the solid electrolyte (see pg. 8 of the “Remarks”). Applicant further notes that Sato teaches an average particle diameter of the solid electrolyte of 0.01 to 100 micrometers ([0061]) in which said range is still within and overlapping the claimed range of 3 micrometers or more. Further, applicant suggests that the range disclosed by Sato is a very wide range; however, the claimed range of 3 µm or more does not comprise an upper end limit and is broad compared to a limited range of 0.01 to 100 µm. Overlap between the ranges of the prior art and claims are obvious in view of MPEP § 2144.05(I); applicant can further provide evidence of unexpected results with support of an affidavit or declaration for the claimed range of the particle diameter and BET specific surface area:
“Objective evidence which must be factually supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration to be of probative value includes evidence of unexpected results … See, for example, In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984)” (see MPEP 716.01(c)).
“To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960)” (see MPEP 716.02(d)(II)).
“An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979)” (see MPEP 716.02(e)).
Seino et al. further teaches observing the specific surface area using the BET method. However, as Seino et al. does not disclose a numerical value of the BET specific surface area, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to explore existing art to determine a suitable BET specific surface area. Therefore, as applicant teaches a direct correlation between the average particle size and specific surface area (see pg. 10 of the “Remarks”), a skilled artisan would expect to observe a BET specific surface area within the claimed range. Jeong et al. is provided as an evidentiary reference to show that that a BET specific surface area within the claimed range of 20 m2/g or more is attainable. Applicant can provide evidence in the form of an affidavit or declaration to show that a combination of Seino et al. and Sato et al. would not provide a specific surface area claimed or to establish unexpected results as described above. “Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984)” (see MPEP 716.01(c)).
Further, applicant argues that the BET specific surface area disclosed by Jeong relates to the inorganic solid electrolyte filler comprising the solid electrolyte and polymer gel, rather than the solid electrolyte itself (see pg. 9 of the “Remarks”). In response, Jeong et al. teaches a nano-scale solid electrolyte in which is nanosized by ball milling; immediately following, Jeong et al. recites that “as a consequence, for example, a BET specific surface area” of about 30 to 70 m2/g is obtained ([0045]). Jeong provides an example and further specifies that a “solid electrolyte powder” underwent a ball milling process to obtain a specific surface area of 55 m2/g ([0051]); the obtained nano-scaled solid electrolyte is mixed with the polymer gel electrolyte in a later step ([0053]). Therefore, the teachings of Jeong et al. reasonably convey to a skilled artisan that the BET specific surface area is related to the solid electrolyte particles rather than an inorganic solid electrolyte filler as applicant suggests.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
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.”).
Previously Cited Sato et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2013143297 A) (“ Sato et al.”).
Previously Cited Jeong et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 3067979 A2) (“Jeong et al.”).
Umetsu et al. U.S. Pat. No. 20190020034 A1 (equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2017126682 A1) (“Umetsu et al.”)
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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).
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.
Umetsu et al. teaches an electrolytic solution comprising TMEDA (tetramethylethylenediamine) in which is capable of complexing with the anion of the lithium compound ([0219]). The TMEDA (lewis acid) functions to coordinate with the anion of the lithium compound promoting oxidation reduction by lowering the highest occupied molecular orbit (HOMO) of the anion and lowering the activation energy in the oxidation reaction of the lithium compound ([0219], [0528]).
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 Umetsu 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to lower the activation energy of the oxidation reaction of the lithium compound as described above.
Regarding Claim 2, Seino et al. is modified by Umetsu et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Seino et al. teaches the decomplexed material (sulfide solid electrolyte) being an amorphous sulfide solid electrolyte or a crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte (para. 46).
Regarding Claim 6, Seino et al. is modified by Umetsu 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).
Regarding Claims 21-23, Seino et al. is modified by Umetsu 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 Umetsu 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 lower the activation energy of the oxidation reaction of the lithium compound as described above and reduce resistance.
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).
Regarding Claim 3, Seino et al. is modified by Umetsu 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 Umetsu 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 Umetsu 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 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).
Regarding Claim 9, 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).
Seino et al. is silent to the particle diameter and specific surface area of the final crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte.
Sato et al. teaches the average particle size of the sulfide solid electrolyte particles as preferably 0.01 to 100 micrometers measured by a laser diffraction particle size distribution measuring method ([0056]), overlapping and within the claimed range of 3 micrometers or more. Jeong et al. teaches a BET specific surface area of sulfide solid electrolyte particles of 30 to 70 m2/g, within the claimed range of 20 micrometers or more (see MPEP § 2144.05, I).
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 0.01 to 100 micrometers as taught by Sato et al, overlapping and within the claimed range of 3 micrometers or more (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). Further, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to observe the BET specific surface area of the crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte in which a surface area of 20 m2/g is attainable as further evident by Jeong et al. Specifically, Jeong et al. teaches a BET specific surface area of sulfide solid electrolyte particles of 30 to 70 m2/g (para. 46). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the teachings of Sato et al. to determine an optimal particle diameter of the sulfide solid electrolyte providing an electrode material capable of improving battery performance (Sato et al., Abstract).
Regarding Claim 12, Seino et al. is modified by Sato 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 Sato 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 Sato 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.
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).
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, the solid electrolyte can be 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). 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.
Sato et al. teaches the average particle size of the sulfide solid electrolyte particles as preferably 0.01 to 100 micrometers measured by a laser diffraction particle size distribution measuring method ([0056]), within and overlapping the claimed range of 3 micrometers or more. Jeong et al. teaches a BET specific surface area of sulfide solid electrolyte particles of 30 to 70 m2/g (para. 46), within the claimed range of 20 micrometers or more (see MPEP § 2144.05, I).
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 electrode composition of Seino et al. to include the particle diameter of 0.01 to 100 micrometers as taught by Sato et al, within and overlapping the claimed range of 3 micrometers or more (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). Further, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to observe the BET specific surface area of the crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte in which a surface area of 20 m2/g is attainable as further evident by Jeong et al. Specifically, Jeong et al. teaches a BET specific surface area of sulfide solid electrolyte particles of 30 to 70 m2/g (para. 46). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the teachings of Sato et al. to determine an optimal particle diameter of the sulfide solid electrolyte providing an electrode material capable of improving battery performance (Sato et al., Abstract).
Regarding Claim 16, Seino et al. is modified by Sato 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 Sato 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 Sato 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 Sato et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2013143297 A) 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 Sato 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
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 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