DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 1/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 21 and 22 are cancelled. Claims 1 and 8-13 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al. (JP2003206111, referring to previously provided translation thereof, hereinafter "Takada").
Regarding claim 1, Takada teaches lithium phosphate thiophosphate compounds which function as lithium ion conductive solid electrolytes [0001]. Takada teaches a lithium phosphate thiophosphate compound represented by the chemical formula Li3PS4-4xO4x, wherein 0.0<x<1.0, and preferably 0.05<x<0.5 [0009]. When x is 0.078, 4x is 0.31, and the lithium phosphate thiophosphate compound is represented by the chemical formula Li3PS3.69O0.31, which is equivalent to the formula recited for the material of the electrolyte in instant claim 1. In the case where the claimed ranges or amounts "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). Takada teaches that the lithium phosphate thiophosphate compound having the formula described above makes it preferable for a solid electrolyte in an all-solid-state lithium battery, and does not mention that it would be added to another electrolyte material [0022, “In particular, lithium thiophosphate phosphate compounds within the specific composition range where x is 0.05 or more and 0.5 or less have a high electrical conductivity of 5 × 10 S/cm or more at room temperature, and as will be described later, are less likely to experience a decrease in electrical conductivity at temperatures above 70°C, making them even more preferable as solid electrolytes for all-solid-state lithium batteries”]. Takada teaches in Examples 2-8 of making the lithium phosphate thiophosphate that the yield is a lithium phosphate thiophosphate compound represented by the chemical formula Li3PS4-4xO4x, and does not mention any additional constituents [0031]. Furthermore, Takada discloses that the samples obtained in the examples contain (“consist of”) the compound represented by Li3PS4-4xO4x, rather than a mixture of lithium phosphate and lithium thiophosphate [0040, “the sample obtained in the example of the present invention is presumed to … Li3PS4-4xO4x, rather than a mixture of a lithium phosphate compound and a lithium thiophosphate compound”]. Therefore, the electrolyte of Takada only consists of Li3PS4-4xO4x.
Further regarding claim 10, Further regarding claim 10, Takada is silent regarding an activation energy of the electrolyte being less than an activation energy of β-Li3PS4. However, Takada teaches an electrolyte with the same chemical composition of the claimed electrolyte, meaning that the electrolyte taught by Takada must have the same properties as the claimed electrolyte, since "[p]roducts 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) (see MPEP 2112.01 II).Therefore, since the composition for the electrolyte taught by Takada is the same as the composition for the claimed electrolyte, the activation energy for the electrolyte taught by Takada must also be the same as the activation energy for the claimed electrolyte, which must also mean that the activation energy of the electrolyte taught by Takada is less than the activation energy of β-Li3PS4 (see MPEP 2112.01 II).
Further regarding claim 11, Takada is silent regarding an activation energy of the electrolyte being at least 5% less than an activation energy of β-Li3PS4. However, as described in the rejection of instant claim 10 above, since the compositions for the electrolyte taught by Takada and the claimed electrolyte are the same, their activation energies and difference thereof from the activation energy of β-Li3PS4 must also be the same (see MPEP 2112.01 II). Therefore the activation energy of the electrolyte taught by Takada must also be at least 5% less than the activation energy of β-Li3PS4.
Further regarding claim 12, Takada is silent regarding an ionic conductivity of the electrolyte being at least 5 times greater than an ionic conductivity of β-Li3PS4. However, Takada teaches an electrolyte with the same chemical composition of the claimed electrolyte, meaning that the electrolyte taught by Takada must have the same properties as the claimed electrolyte, since "[p]roducts 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) (see MPEP 2112.01 II).Therefore, since the composition for the electrolyte taught by Takada is the same as the composition for the claimed electrolyte, the ionic conductivity of the electrolyte taught by Takada and the claimed electrolyte are the same, which must also mean that the difference between the ionic conductivity of the electrolyte and the ionic conductivity of β-Li3PS4 is the same for both electrolytes (see MPEP 2112.01 II). Therefore, the ionic conductivity of the electrolyte taught by Takada must also be at least 5 times greater than the ionic conductivity of β-Li3PS4.
Regarding claim 13, Takada teaches the electrolyte of claim 1, as described in the rejection of instant claim 1 above. Takada teaches that the electrolyte consisting of Li3PS4-4xO4x (wherein 0.05<x<0.5 as described previously) has excellent lithium conductivity and is preferable for use in an all-solid-state lithium battery (“lithium ion battery”) [0022, “lithium thiophosphate phosphate compounds within the specific composition range where x is 0.05 or more and 0.5 or less have a high electrical conductivity of 5 × 10 S/cm or more at room temperature, and as will be described later, are less likely to experience a decrease in electrical conductivity at temperatures above 70°C, making them even more preferable as solid electrolytes for all-solid-state lithium batteries”].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada (JP2003206111) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (CN 108054426, referring to previously provided English translation thereof, hereinafter "Chen").
Regarding claim 8, Takada teaches the electrolyte of claim 1, as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Takada does not specifically teach the electrolyte in the form of a powder.
Chen teaches analogous art of a sulfide solid electrolyte modified by an oxide having the formula Li3PS4-xOx, wherein 0<x<4 [0010]. Chen teaches that the electrolyte may be in the form of a powder in both Example 1 and Example 3 [0040, 0054].
Chen teaches a sulfide solid electrolyte comprising Li, P, S, and O intended for lithium ion batteries [0002, “The invention relates to the technical field of lithium ion batteries, and relates to a sulfide solid electrolyte”, 0010]. Takada also teaches a solid electrolyte comprising Li, P, S, and O for lithium batteries [0022].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte taught by Takada to be in a powder form as taught by Chen to yield the predictable result of a solid electrolyte to be used in a lithium battery (see MPEP 2143 I A).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada (JP2003206111) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakata et al. (WO 2018225526, referring to previously provided English translation thereof, hereinafter "Nakata").
Regarding claim 9, Takada teaches the electrolyte of claim 1, as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Takada does not specifically teach the electrolyte in the form of a pellet.
Nakata teaches analogous art of a solid electrolyte for use in a lithium ion battery [0004, “A sulfide solid electrolyte is known as a solid electrolyte used in lithium ion batteries”]. Nakata teaches several examples of the solid electrolyte that are formed into a pellet [0066, “Circular pellets with a diameter of 10 mm and a height of 0.1 to 0.3 cm were formed”]. Nakata teaches that the pellet densities of the solid electrolytes range from 1.735 g/cm3 to 1.900 g/cm3, which is within the recited range of 1.5 g/cm3 to 2 g/cm3 [0062, “The ionic conductivity, pellet density, and phosphorus ratio contained in each structure of the obtained sulfide solid electrolyte were evaluated. The results are shown in Table 6”, Nakata Table 6, translated table included in Examiner-provided translation].
Both Nakata and Takada teach electrolytes for use in a solid-state battery [Nakata 0003, “lithium-ion batteries, which use a solid electrolyte to create a fully solid-state battery”, Takada 0022, “making them even more preferable as solid electrolytes for all-solid-state lithium batteries”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the electrolyte taught by Takada with the pellet shape and pellet density taught by Nakata, to yield the predictable result of a solid electrolyte in the form of a pellet ready for use in a solid-state battery (see MPEP 2143 I A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Kanno et al. (US 2021/0242491) 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.
Applicant alleges that the electrolyte recited in instant claim 1 of formula (I), Li3PS4-xOx, wherein x is 0.31, is not taught nor suggested by Takada (JP2003206111), Nakata (WO 2018225526), or any other references previously cited [Remarks, pg. 5].
As described in the rejection of instant claim 1 above, the general chemical formula taught by Takada for a lithium phosphate thiophosphate compound encompasses the electrolyte recited in instant claim 1, therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Applicant further alleges that the electrolyte recited in instant claim 1 of formula (I) is not prima facie obvious over Takada (JP2003206111), Nakata (WO 2018225526), or any other references previously cited because the recited electrolyte achieves surprising and unexpected results [Remarks, pgs. 5-7]. Applicant offers the results discussed in the application as filed regarding electrolytes of formula (I), wherein x is 0.31 [Remarks, pgs. 5-6] as support for this allegation of unexpected results.
It is respectfully submitted that the instant application as filed does not provide support for this allegation of unexpected results, and in fact contradicts said argument.
While paragraph [0151] of the specification does state that “the balanced factors in Li3PS3.69O0.31 lead to optimal performance as revealed by EIS”, this “optimal performance” is not unexpected, since paragraph [0151] also states that the high Li-ion conduction of Li3PS3.69O0.31 is “in accordance with the Meyer-Neldel rule” and that experimentally determined factors “aligned well with that from simulation”. If there is a rule governing the behavior of the material, the “optimal performance” and “high Li-ion conduction” cannot be said to be “unexpected”. Paragraph [0136] of the specification also notes that “computational prediction of optimal value of x to maximize the Li-conductivity had close agreement with the experiment” and “a quantitative agreement between high temperature experimental behavior and AIMD derived Ea values were observed”, and paragraph [0149] notes that “the Ea,ρ′HT values were quite close to the simulated long-range diffusion energy barrier predicted via AIMD, giving further evidence to the reliability of both techniques to probe on a large length scale”. The agreement between simulated, or predicted, values and experimental values outlined in the instant specification seems to further suggest that the performance of the claimed electrolyte is not unexpected. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1 and 8-13 is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA F OROZCO whose telephone number is (571)272-0172. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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.
/M.F.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
