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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 16 have been amended; support for claim 1 is found in at least previously presented claim 2, the amendment to claim 16 was a minor editorial amendment.
Claims 2, 8, 15, and 18 have been cancelled.
Claims 3-7, 9-14, and 19-21 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1, and 16-17 are currently pending and have been examined on the merits in this office action.
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 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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2014/0227606 A1) in view of Katoh et al. (US 2018/0316056 A1) and Sakamoto et al. (US 2017/0179521 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses a solid electrolyte precursor represented by the following formula (I) Li(2a-n)Yn+Sa ([0074-0075] examples of the solid electrolyte material precursor layer having specific examples such as Li3AlS3 or Li3BS3);
Wherein Y is independently selected from B, and Al wherein 4≤n≤5, and 4.8≤a≤5.2 ([0074-0075]),
Wherein the precursor comprises no dopants (Suzuki does not disclose dopants in the solid electrolyte).
Suzuki discloses the material that can be used for the precursor material Li3BS3, however, Suzuki is silent with respect to wherein the material of formula 1 follows the relationship of 4.8≤a≤5.2.
Katoh discloses an all solid state battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the field of solid electrolyte batteries. Katoh discloses wherein a solid electrolyte material can be made of a plurality of materials such as Li3PS4 and Li6PS5X wherein X= Cl, Br, or I ([0022],[0029]). Kato’s solid electrolyte material of Li6PS5X wherein X= Cl, Br, I would read on the claimed formula (I) wherein a=5 and n=4 and wherein an additive material of Cl, Br or I was added in order to obtain a high energy, high concentration electrolyte battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to substitute the solid electrolyte of Suzuki for the solid electrolyte material of Katoh as a simple substitution of one solid electrolyte material for another that would yield predictable results as both materials are known solid electrolyte materials. The substitution of one solid electrolyte material for another would have rendered the claim limitations as obvious as formula (I) is very broad in the scope of solid electrolytes and solid electrolyte batteries and can read as the broad precursor material. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Examiner notes that Suzuki is silent with respect to dopants being provided, however, this is a common feature as taught by Sakamoto.
Sakamoto discloses a method of making a battery elements for solid state batteries and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of batteries. Sakamoto discloses wherein a solid state electrolyte can be combined with dopant atoms having nominal valences of +1 to +4 such as H, Na, K, Rb, Cs, Ba, Sr, Ca, Mg, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Ga, Al, B, and Mn ([0013], [0031];).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the solid electrolyte material of Suzuki to include a dopant material such as one taught by Sakamoto that is in their respective oxidation state as a dopant for the solid electrolyte. Dopants are well known and common in the art to provide/ alter physical properties such as electrical properties, therefore, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to add a dopant material to the solid electrolyte to enhance the physical and/or electrical properties of the solid electrolyte. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-17 are 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: Claim 16 contains the limitation wherein the precursor is selected from Li5PS5, Li5AsS5, Li5SbS5 or mixtures thereof. This material used as a solid electrolyte precursor material is deemed to be allowable as the prior art fails to teach nor render obvious the specific compounds claimed for the precursor material. Claim 17 is objected to for depending upon claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended claims overcome the rejection of record. Examiner notes that the rejection has been updated rendering the arguments moot in view of the updated rejection.
Applicant argues that the amended claims overcome the rejection of record because the precursor materials would not have been substituted for the final solid electrolyte materials as presented by applicant. This argument is not persuasive in view of the breadth of the claims. Applicant fails to specify the distinction between the precursor and the final solid electrolyte material according to claims 1 and 16 wherein the previously presented claim 16 lists specific materials used as the precursor material thus the materials of previously presented claim 16 would read on the formula of independent claim 1 as claim 16 is further narrowing the board materials of claim 1.
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 Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 pm EST.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728