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 .
Response to Amendment
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 18, 2026 have been fully considered. Applicant argues that a) the prior art does not teach “wherein in the step (B2), the first inorganic material is moved in the cylindrical shaft direction by reciprocating at least one end of the cylindrical container in a direction perpendicular to the cylindrical shaft direction” and b) Jiang does not cure the claimed speed of reciprocation because Jiang’s stated effect is obtained by axial reciprocating movement of a cam-driven shaft to produce intense multi-dimensional hammering, impact, crushing, and grinding.
Regarding argument A, Applicant’s argument has been fully considered but are considered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection below in view of Applicant’s amendments to the independent claim 12.
Regarding argument B, Applicant’s argument has been fully considered but are considered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection below that do not rely on Jiang as a prior art reference in view of Applicant’s amendments to the independent claim 12.
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.
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 12-13, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 108493479 A), hereinafter referred to as Zhang, in view of Tang et al. (CN 110152805 A), hereinafter referred to as Tang, and Chen et al. (CN 107790235 A1), hereinafter referred to as Chen.
Regarding claim 12, Zhang teaches a preparation method of an oxygen-doped sulfide solid electrolyte (“a method of manufacturing an inorganic material”) (see e.g., paragraph [0001]). Zhang teaches the method comprises mixing the raw materials Li2S, Li2Se, P2S5, P2Se5, and LiCl (or LiBr or LiI), heating the raw materials in a sealed quartz tube at a relatively slow heating temperature, and cooling to produce a cooled block (“a step (A) of preparing a first inorganic material as a raw material”) (see e.g., paragraph [0011]). Zhang teaches the cooled block is removed and ground into a powder by ball in mill in a glove box to obtain oxygen-doped sulfide solid electrolyte (“a step (B) of obtaining a second inorganic material by crushing the first inorganic material using a ball mill to obtain fine particles of the first inorganic material” and “each of the first inorganic material and the second inorganic material includes a sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material”) (see e.g., paragraph [0011]). Zhang teaches the ball milling is carried out at a low speed of 100-200 rpm (“a rotation speed of the cylindrical container in the step (B1) is 30 rpm or higher and 120 rpm or lower”) (see e.g., paragraph [0011]).
Zhang teaches the crushing of the cooled block is performed by a ball mill. It is well known in the art that a ball mill includes balls and a container that is rotated in order to cause the movements of the balls to crush the material placed inside of the container. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a cylindrical container and crushing balls for the ball mill because the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Therefore, Zhang meets the claim limitations of “the ball mill including cylindrical container and crushing balls” and “a step (B1) of putting the first inorganic material and the crushing balls into the cylindrical container and subsequently rotating the cylindrical container about a cylindrical shaft.”
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the rotation step of 100 to 120 rpm overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Zhang does not explicitly teach a step (B2) of moving the cylindrical container such that the first inorganic material moves in the cylindrical shaft direction, a speed of reciprocation in the step (B2) is 1 cpm or higher and 30 cpm or lower, and wherein in the step (B2), the first inorganic material is moved in the cylindrical shaft direction by reciprocating at least one end of the cylindrical container in a direction perpendicular to the cylindrical shaft direction.
However, Tang teaches a ball mixing device (see e.g., paragraph [0002]). Tang teaches the ball mixing apparatus comprises a ball mill cylinder and a reciprocating mechanism (see e.g., paragraphs [0009], [0011], and [0013]). Tang teaches the reciprocating mechanism operates by the up and down swing motion of a connecting rod 44 into a circumferential reciprocating rotation of a turntable 45, thereby realizing the reciprocating operation of the ball mill cylinder in the circumferential direction (“a step (B2) of moving the cylindrical container such that the first inorganic material moves in the cylindrical shaft direction” and “wherein in the step (B2), the first inorganic material is moved in the cylindrical shaft direction by reciprocating at least one end of the cylindrical container in a direction perpendicular to the cylindrical shaft direction”) (see e.g., paragraph [0070]). Tang teaches the reciprocating achieves the circumferential reciprocating motion of the ball mill cylinder, preventing some material inside the ball mill cylinder from adhering to the inner wall of the cylinder, thereby improving the efficiency of material crushing and mixing and ensuring the processing quality of the inorganic material (see e.g., paragraph [0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the ball mill of Zhang to include a reciprocating operation of the ball mill cylinder in the circumferential direction, as taught by Tang, in order to prevent some material inside the ball mill cylinder from adhering to the inner wall of the cylinder, thereby improving the efficiency of material crushing and mixing and ensuring the processing quality of the inorganic material (see e.g., paragraph [0071]).
Zhang, as modified by Tang, does not explicitly teach a speed of reciprocation in the step (B2) is 1 cpm or higher and 30 cpm or lower.
However, Chen teaches a ball mill (see e.g., paragraph [0002]). Chen teaches the movement of the ball mill body can be adjusted to make a slow reciprocating swing around a rotating shaft 11 with speeds of 2 ± 0.5 rpm and 4 ± 0.5 rpm (see e.g., paragraph [0076]) in order to improve the powder output rate of the ball mill (see e.g., paragraph [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the reciprocating operation of Zhang, as modified by Tang, to occur at speeds of 2 ± 0.5 rpm and 4 ± 0.5 rpm, as taught by Chen, in order to improve the powder output rate of the ball mill (see e.g., paragraph [0033]).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang, as modified by Tang and Chen, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 12, as previously described.
Zhang teaches the cooled block is removed and ground into a powder by ball in mill in a glove box (“wherein in the step (B), the first inorganic material is crushed in a dry state”) (see e.g., paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang, as modified by Tang and Chen, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 12, as previously described.
Zhang teaches the cooled block formed from mixing and heating mixing the raw materials Li2S, Li2Se, P2S5, P2Se5, and LiCl (or LiBr or LiI) is removed and ground into a powder by ball in mill in a glove box to obtain oxygen-doped sulfide solid electrolyte (“wherein each of the first inorganic material and the second inorganic material is an inorganic solid electrolyte material”) (see e.g., paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang, as modified by Tang and Chen, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 12, as previously described.
Zhang teaches an oxygen-doped sulfide solid electrolyte (see e.g., paragraph [0001]) with high ionic conductivity (see e.g., paragraph [0014]) is formed from mixing the raw materials Li2S, Li2Se, P2S5, P2Se5, and LiCl (or LiBr or LiI), heating the raw materials in a sealed quartz tube at a relatively slow heating temperature, cooling to produce a cooled block, and grinding into a powder by ball in mill in a glove box to obtain oxygen-doped sulfide solid electrolyte (“wherein the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material has lithium ionic conductivity and includes Li, P, and S as constituent elements”) (see e.g., paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 17, Zhang, as modified by Tang and Chen, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 16, as previously described.
Zhang teaches an embodiment of the sulfide solid electrolyte is represented by Li6PS-4.4O0.6Cl (see e.g., paragraph [0025]), wherein the molar ratio of Li/P is 6 and the molar ratio S/P is 4.4; therefore, Zhang teaches the claim limitation “wherein a molar ratio Li/P of a content of Li to a content of P in the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material is 1.0 or higher and 10.0 or lower, and a molar ratio S/P of a content of S to the content of P in the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material is 1.0 or higher and 10.0 or lower.”
Regarding claim 18, Zhang, as modified by Tang and Chen, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 12, as previously described.
Zhang does not explicitly teach the cooled block is in a vitreous state; however, Zhang teaches the cooled block is formed by heating the raw materials in a sealed quartz tube at a relatively slow heating temperature and then is cooled in a furnace by ice water cooling (see e.g., paragraph [0011]). Because of the teachings of Zhang to produce a cooled block by slowly heating and cooling, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the cooled block in a vitreous state based on the teachings of Zhang (“wherein the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material as the first inorganic material is in a vitreous state”).
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 108493479 A), hereinafter referred to as Zhang, in view of Tang et al. (CN 110152805 A), hereinafter referred to as Tang, and Chen et al. (CN 107790235 A1), and further in view of Goto et al. (WO 2012/046854 A), hereinafter referred to as Goto.
Regarding claim 19, Zhang, as modified by Tang and Chen, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 12, as previously described
Zhang, as modified by Tang and Chen, does not explicitly teach wherein the crushing balls includes two or more kinds of crushing balls having different diameters.
However, Goto teaches a method for producing a positive electrode material precursor (see e.g., Abstract). Goto teaches the method comprises a mixing such as a ball mill (see e.g., page 11, lines 474-477). Goto teaches a plurality of spherical media M (balls) are utilized with differing diameters (“wherein the crushing balls includes two or more kinds of crushing balls having different diameters”) (see e.g., Figure 1 and page 10, line 401). Goto teaches the average diameter of the spherical media M ranges from 1 mm to 5 mm (see e.g., page 10, lines 401-405). Goto teaches the spherical media M with different diameters improves the mixing and produces a high-quality material precursor with lower processing times (see e.g., page 10, lines 406-409).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the mechanical milling of Zhang, as modified by Tang and Chen, to include a plurality of spherical media M with differing diameters, as taught in Goto, in order to improve the mixing and produce a high-quality material precursor with lower processing times (see e.g., page 10, lines 406-409).
Regarding claim 20, Zhang, as modified by Tang, Chen, and Goto, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 19, as previously described
As previously described in claim 19, the average diameter of the spherical media M ranges from 1 mm to 5 mm (“wherein the crushing balls include first crushing balls having a diameter in a range 1.5 mm or more and 2.5 mm or less and second crushing balls have a diameter in a range of 0.2 mm or more and less than 1.5 mm”) (see e.g., page 10, lines 401-405).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the average diameter of the spherical media M ranges from 1 mm to 5 mm overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 21, Zhang, as modified by Tang, Chen, and Goto, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 20, as previously described
As previously described in claim 19, the average diameter of the spherical media M ranges from 1 mm to 5 mm (“wherein the crushing balls further include third crushing balls having a diameter of more than 2.5 mm and 10.0 mm or less”) (see e.g., page 10, lines 401-405).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the average diameter of the spherical media M ranges from 1 mm to 5 mm overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 108493479 A), hereinafter referred to as Zhang, in view of Tang et al. (CN 110152805 A), hereinafter referred to as Tang, and Chen et al. (CN 107790235 A1), and further in view of Kong (CN 209124046 U).
Regarding claim 22, Zhang, as modified by Tang and Chen, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 12, as previously described.
Zhang, as modified by Tang and Chen, does not explicitly teach wherein in the step (B2), the first inorganic material is moved in the cylindrical shaft direction by reciprocating both ends of the cylindrical container in a direction perpendicular to the cylindrical shaft direction.
However, Kong teaches a ball mill system (see e.g., paragraph [0002]). Kong teaches the ball mill system comprises a cylindrical ball mill connected to a rotary drive mechanism (see e.g., paragraph [0010]). Kong teaches since the central axis of the ball mill is oblique to the axis of the drive shaft on both ends of the ball mill (“wherein in the step (B2), the first inorganic material is moved in the cylindrical shaft direction by reciprocating both ends of the cylindrical container in a direction perpendicular to the cylindrical shaft direction”) (see e.g., paragraph [0016] and Figure 1), the ball mill moves by rotating around its own central axis while also making a reciprocating oscillation on its on axial plane (see e.g., paragraph [0012]). Kong teaches the two rotary drive mechanisms on each end support both ends of the ball mill, preventing the connecting frame and drive shaft from being deformed or even damaged by excessive bending torque when supported by only one ball mill rotary drive mechanism (see e.g., paragraph [0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify reciprocating mechanism of Zhang, as modified by Tang and Chen, to include a mechanism on each end of the ball mill, as taught by Kong, in order to support both ends of the ball mill, preventing the connecting frame and drive shaft from being deformed or even damaged by excessive bending torque when supported by only one ball mill rotary drive mechanism (see e.g., paragraph [0016]).
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 Katherine N Higgins whose telephone number is (703)756-1196. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays - Thursdays 7:30-4:30 EST, Fridays 7:30 - 11:30 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 T 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.
/KATHERINE N HIGGINS/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights