DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on December 11, 2025, has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-5 remain pending in the application.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2018029058 A (Terai ‘058 – citing to the previously attached English translation) in view of JP 2019164980 A (Nishizaki ‘980 – citing to the previously provided English translation), and further in view of WO 2018164224 A1 (Utsuno ‘808 – citing to US 20200006808 A1 as an English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Terai ‘058 discloses a sulfide solid electrolyte, and electrode mixture, and a lithium-ion battery ([0001]).
The sulfide solid electrolyte preferably satisfies, for example, the composition represented by formula (4): Lia(P1-αMα)SbXc ([0024] & [0025]). X is preferably one or more halogen elements selected from F, Cl, Br, and I ([0025]). This allows the halogen element to be incorporated into the argyrodite-type crystal structure, increasing ionic conductivity ([0025]). When two or more halogen elements are contained, the content ratio of each element is not particularly limited ([0025]). It is preferable that α is 0 ([0025]). Further, the additional conditions of formula 4 include: 5 ≤ a ≤ 7.5; 6.5 ≤ a +c ≤ 7.5; 0.5 ≤ a – b ≤ 1.5; b > 0; and c ≥ 0.
When X is Cl and Br, a is 5.4, α is 0, b is 4.4, and c is 0.8, the previous conditions are satisfied, and the formula of the sulfide solid electrolyte corresponds to example 1, 2, and 3 of the present specification:
Li5.4PS4.4Cl0.8Br0.8
5 ≤ 5.4 ≤ 7.5; 6.5 ≤ 5.4 + 0.8 + 0.8 ≤ 7.5; 0.5 ≤ 5.4 – 4.4 ≤ 1.5; 4.4 > 0; and 0.8 ≥ 0.
Therefore, Terai ‘058 reads on the claimed limitation of a sulfide solid electrolyte comprising: a compound that comprises a crystal phase having an argyrodite-type crystal structure and that is represented by LiaPSbXc, where X is at least one elemental halogen, a represents a number of 3.0 or more and 6.0 or less, b represents a number of 3.5 or more and 4.8 or less, and c represents a number of 0.1 or more and 3.0 or less.
Terai ‘058 does not specifically disclose that the specific surface area is in a range of 5.0 m2g-1 to 13.1 m2g-1 or more.
Nishizaki ‘980 discloses an all-solid battery having a sulfide-based solid electrolyte, wherein the sulfide-based solid electrolyte may be represented by Li6PS5Cl or Li6PS5Br ([0045] of the English translation of Nishizaki ‘980). The sulfide-based solid electrolyte or its precursor preferably has a specific surface area between 1.2 m2/g and 13 m2/g ([0053] of the English translation of Nishizaki ‘980). Advantageously, the solid electrolyte or its precursor having large specific surface area results in a uniform coating process and sintering process, wherein the width of the solid electrolyte layer in the laminated sintered body can be reduced, and the porosity can be reduced ([0053] of the English translation of Nishizaki ‘980). However, when the width of the solid electrolyte layer is too small, it becomes difficult to ensure sufficient conductivity of lithium ions due to an increase in resistance ([0024] of the English translation of Nishizaki ‘980).
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, for the sulfide solid electrolyte, as taught by Terai ‘058, to have a specific surface area in a range of 1.2 m2/g and 13 m2/g, which overlaps with the claimed 5 m2/g to 13.1 m2/g, in seeking to provide sufficient lithium-ion conductivity, as suggested by Nishizaki ‘980.
Further, as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Terai ‘058 does not specifically disclose that the sulfide solid electrolyte has a particle size of 0.9 µm or less.
Utsuno ‘808 discloses solid electrolyte sulfide particles containing lithium, phosphorous, and sulfur, having a volume-based average particle size measured by laser diffraction particle size distribution measurement of 0.1 µm or more and 10 µm or less, and an ionic conductivity of 4.0 mS/cm or more ([0017]).
Accordingly, the sulfide solid electrolyte particles having a crystal structure of a stable phase and having a small particle size and a high ionic conductivity can be provided ([0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide that the sulfide solid electrolyte, as taught by Terai ‘058, has a small particle size of 0.1 µm or more and 10 µm or less, which overlaps with 0.9 µm or less, and has high ionic conductivity, as suggested by Utsuno ‘808.
Further, as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding composition claims, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.). Thus, Terai ‘058 also reads on the claimed limitation of the sulfide solid electrolyte having a ratio of R / A of 3.40 (%/m2/g) or more, where R represents ALi / (ALi + AP +AS + AX), A represents a specific surface area (m2g-1) of the sulfide solid electrolyte, ALi represents the amount of lithium (atom%) quantitatively determined from a Li 1s peak, AP represents the amount of phosphorous (atom%) quantitatively determined from a P 2p peak, AS represents the amount of sulfur (atom%) quantitatively determined from a S 2p peak, and AX represents the amount of halogen (atom%) quantitatively determined from a halogen peak, and the peaks are exhibited in X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS).
Regarding claim 3, Terai ‘058 teaches an electrode material mixture comprising: the sulfide solid electrolyte according to claim 1; and an active material (an electrode mixture containing the above-mentioned sulfide solid electrode and an active material; [0007] of Terai ‘058).
Regarding claim 4, Terai ‘058 teaches a solid electrolyte layer comprising the sulfide solid electrolyte according to claim 1 (the sulfide solid electrolyte can be used for a solid electrolyte layer; [0052] of Terai ‘058).
Regarding claim 5, Terai ‘058 teaches a solid-state battery comprising the sulfide solid electrolyte according to claim 1 (a lithium-ion battery including the sulfide solid electrolyte; [0064] of Terai ‘058).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 11, 2025, have been fully considered.
Applicant asserts the relationship between a particle size and a specific surface area of the present application is contrary to general knowledge, because the present invention as a whole achieves a smaller specific surface area despite having a small particle size of a sulfide solid electrolyte. Additionally, applicant asserts that a specific and unique method is employed, such as adjusting a slurry concentration during wet milling, to yield the claimed unique relationship between the specific surface area and the particle size of the sulfide solid electrolyte.
In contrast, applicant suggests that Terai ‘058 does not employ wet milling for the solid electrolyte nor any other mechanism which could yield the claimed specific surface area and particle size. Further, applicant states that Nishizaki ‘980 does not disclose or suggest a method of manufacturing a solid electrolyte at all, and thus, Nishizaki ‘980 cannot yield the claimed configuration, because the configuration is contrary to general knowledge and no special technique for doing so is disclosed.
However, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. The claims are not directed to a specific and unique method of manufacturing a solid electrolyte. Rather, the claims are directed to a sulfide solid electrolyte product having a claimed specific surface area and a claimed particle size, both of which are disclosed by the cited references.
While no longer relied on this Office action, previously cited references Yubuchi 2018 and Yu 2017 suggest that a sulfide solid electrolyte having a small particle size of about 1.0 µm results in increased lithium-ion conductivity and decreased resistance.
The previously cited references do not explicitly disclose a particle size of 0.9 µm or less, however, Utsuno ‘808 discloses solid electrolyte sulfide particles containing lithium, phosphorous, and sulfur, having a volume-based average particle size measured by laser diffraction particle size distribution measurement of 0.1 µm or more and 10 µm or less ([0017]).
The cited references, when combined, disclose the claimed configuration of the specific surface area and the small particle size, regardless of the asserted specific and unique method employed, because the claimed composition is disclosed by Terai ‘058, the specific surface area is disclosed by Nishizaki ‘980, and the particle size is disclosed by Utusno ‘808.
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 TAYLOR H KRONE whose telephone number is (571)270-5064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 6:00 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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached on 571-270-3879. 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.
/TAYLOR HARRISON KRONE/Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725