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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Claims 1-4, 8-18, 20-38, and 56 in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 23, and 25-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 4, line 3, the phrase “such as” is indefinite as to whether the members of the subsequent group form a complete group and whether they are required by the claim.
In claim 23, the phrase “appears substantially similar to the solid-state electrolyte in Fig. 2B” is indefinite as to scope. It is unclear if the claim requires that the claimed material appears similar to the material represented by Fig. 2B or merely the image shown in Fig. 2B. The claim does not require any particular material composition. It is further unclear whether the claim requires the same chemical composition or merely the same physical shape.
Each of claims 25-33, requires a solid-state electrolyte having a XRD or EDS spectrum as shown by a figure. Each of these claims is indefinite because it is not clear whether the claim requires that just the XRD or EDS data is similar or that both the chemical composition and the XRD or EDS data is similar.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 14-18, 21, 24, 36-38, and 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang US 2005/0016458.
Regarding claims 1, 36, 38, and 56, Zhang teaches a process of making a solid-state electrolyte (Paragraph [0002]). The process includes preparing a precursor by mixing (Paragraph [0025]). The precursors are them subject to plasma processing by exciting a plasma gas in the presence of an excitation source (Paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claims 2, the precursor may be the precursor may be a lithium containing material (Claim 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 3, the solid-state material may be LiPON (Paragraph [0007]), which is a glass structure (Paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 14, the excitation source may be a radio frequency plasma source (Paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 15, the carrier gas pressure may be 0.05 to 10 torr (Paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 16, the flow of the lithium precursor may be 175 sccm (Example) and heated (Paragraph [0023]), which would inherently require heating the precursor to a crystallization temperature in the range of 1 microsecond and 60 seconds.
Regarding claim 17, the carrier gas may be reactive or non-reactive (Claims 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 18, the carrier gas may be a non-reactive (Claim 5). The process may use multiple carrier gases, which would be considered a second plasma processing step under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 21, the process includes heating to 160 deg. C (Paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 24, the process occurs in the absence of a solvent (Disclosure).
Regarding claim 37, the solid-state electrolyte may be used in a battery, which is an electrochemical cell (Paragraph [0002]).
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-10, 12-13, 17, 22, 35-38, and 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Holme US 2014/0272564.
Regarding claims 1, 36, 38, and 56, Holme teaches a process of making a solid-state electrolyte (Paragraph [0173]). The process includes preparing a precursor by mixing (Paragraph [0203]). The precursors are subject to plasma processing, which would require exciting a plasma gas in the presence of an excitation source (Paragraph [0201]).
Regarding claims 2, 4, 8-10, and 12, the precursor may be the precursor may be a lithium containing material, such as lithium sulfide or lithium fluoride (Paragraph [0203]).
Regarding claim 3, the solid-state material may be crystalline or glassy (Paragraph [0087]).
Regarding claim 13, the precursor materials may be nanoparticles (Paragraph [0203]), which inherently includes particles in the range of 1 to 1000 nm.
Regarding claim 17, the carrier gas may be non-reactive (Paragraph [0203]).
Regarding claim 22, the particles may be approximately spherical (Paragraph [0111]).
Regarding claim 35, combination of the electrochemically active materials, which would occur after synthesis may occur by milling (Paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 37, the solid-state electrolyte may be used in an electrochemical cell (Paragraph [0034]).
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.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holme US 2014/0272564 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Svoboda US 10468668.
Holme does not expressly state that the process makes a eutectic material.
In an analogous process of making materials for solid state electrolyte batteries (Abstract), Svoboda teaches that the solid-state electrolyte may be made of a eutectic mixture of a combination of LiCl and KCl (col. 12, l. 25).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to form the solid-state electrolyte of Holme having a eutectic material as taught in Svoboda. The rationale for doing so would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach or suggest the cumulative features of claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kercher US 2021/0032117 teaches a process of making a solid-state electrolyte (Abstract). The process includes preparing a precursor by mixing (Paragraph [0013]). The precursors are them subject to plasma processing by exciting a plasma gas in the presence of an excitation source (Abstract).
Mohanty US 2010/0323118 teaches a process of making a solid-state electrolyte (Abstract). The process includes preparing a precursor by mixing (Paragraph [0063]). The precursors are them subject to plasma processing by exciting a plasma gas in the presence of an excitation source (Paragraph [0055]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A FIORITO whose telephone number is (571)272-9921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
/JAMES A FIORITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731