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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 19, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed May 19, 2025 have been entered. Claim 12 has been amended; support for the amendment can be found in the Instant Specification paragraph [0040]. Claims 12-21 remain pending and have been examined on their merits in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 19, 2025 have 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to claim 12 have overcome the previous 112(b) rejections and are withdrawn.
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 12-18 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 Jiang (CN 105618206 A).
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 and a speed of reciprocation in the step (B2) is 1 cpm or higher and 30 cpm or lower.
However, Jiang teaches a ball mill, specifically a multidimensional ball-hammer type micro/nano powder ball mill (see e.g., paragraph [0006]). Jiang teaches the ball mill includes a reciprocating transmission mechanism that drives the rotating shaft to reciprocate axially (“a step (B2) of moving the cylindrical container such that the first inorganic material moves in the cylindrical shaft direction”) (see e.g., paragraph [0012]). Jian teaches the axial reciprocating movement of the rotating shaft driven by cams with convex or concave rails having axial undulating trajectories that causes the powder and grinding balls in the jar to fall in all directions, generating multi-dimensional hammering action that produces nano-sized powders that significantly improves the processing efficiency, yield, and quality of nanoscale powder materials (see e.g., paragraph [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the ball milling of Zhang to include a reciprocating transmission mechanism, as taught by Jiang, in order to cause the powder and grinding balls in the jar to fall in all directions, generating multi-dimensional hammering action that produces nano-sized powders that significantly improves the processing efficiency, yield, and quality of nanoscale powder materials (see e.g., paragraph [0019]).
Zhang, as modified by Jiang, does not explicitly teach a speed of reciprocation in the step (B2) is 1 cpm or higher and 30 cpm or lower.
However, Jiang teaches previously when the rotation speed increases of a ball, such as above 200 rpm, the moving distance of the grinding balls inside the grinding jar becomes smaller and the grinding effect becomes worse as well as when the speed is slower, the worse the grinding effect and the lower the efficiency (see e.g., paragraph [0004]). Jiang teaches the reciprocating transmission mechanism to drive the rotating shaft to move axially back and forth (see e.g., paragraph [0008]) generates intense multi-dimensional hammering, impact, crushing, and grinding by causing the powder and grinding balls in the jar to fall in all directions to produce powder materials with a thickness of 5-1000 nm and a particle size of 100-2000 nm (see e.g., paragraph [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the speed of reciprocation of the ball mill of Zhang, as modified by Jiang, to be 1 cpm or higher and 30 cpm or lower in order to crush the material into uniform micro-nano powders, significantly improving the processing efficiency, yield, and quality of nanoscale powder materials (see e.g., paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang, as modified by Jiang, 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 14, Zhang, as modified by Jiang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 12, as previously described.
Jiang teaches the ball mill includes a reciprocating transmission mechanism that drives the rotating shaft to reciprocate axially (see e.g., paragraph [0012]). Jiang teaches the reciprocating transmission is provided on the frame 10 to drive the rotating shaft 11 to move axially back and forth (“wherein in the step (B2), the first inorganic material is moved in the cylindrical shaft direction by reciprocating the cylindrical container in the cylindrical shaft direction”) (see e.g., paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang, as modified by Jiang, 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 Jiang, 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 Jiang, 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 Jiang, 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) in view of Jiang (CN 105618206 A), and further in view of Goto et al. (WO 2012/046854 A), hereinafter referred to as Goto.
Regarding claim 19, Zhang, as modified by Jiang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 12, as previously described
Zhang, as modified by Jiang, 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 Jiang, 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 Jiang 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 Jiang 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 cruhsing 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)).
Conclusion
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