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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is amended. Claims 6-7 & 9 are canceled. Claim 12 is newly added. Claims 1-5, 8 & 10-12 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8 & 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senga (US 2010/0151335 A1) in view of Matsuyama (JP 2015146239 A).
Regarding claims 1-4, 8 & 11, Senga teaches a method of manufacturing a sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material including Li, P and S as constituting elements, the method comprising: a step (A) of preparing a sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material in a vitreous state; and a step (B) of annealing the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material in a vitreous state using a heating unit with an inert gas (i.e nitrogen) atmosphere, wherein the step (B) includes a step (B1) of disposing the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material in the vitreous state disposed in the heating unit, a step (B2) of annealing the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material in a vitreous state disposed in the heating space while increasing a temperature of the heating unit from room temperature (i.e about 20°C-25°C) to an annealing temperature T1 of 260°C at a rate of 10°C/min, and a step (B3) of annealing the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material in the vitreous state disposed in the heating unit at the annealing temperature T1 ([0069]-[0070]). Senga is silent as to a molar ratio (Li/P) of a content of Li to a content of P in the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material is 3.0 or higher and 4.2 or lower, and a molar ratio (S/P) of a content of S to a content of P in the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material is 3.8 or higher and 4.2 or lower. Matsuyama teaches a method of manufacturing a sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material including Li, P, S and N as constituting elements, wherein the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material is prepared in a vitreous state by preparing a mixture including lithium sulfide, phosphorous sulfide and lithium nitride and mechanical processing the mixture before step (A) (Page 2). Matsuyama further teaches a molar ratio (Li/P) of a content of Li to a content of P in the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material is 3.0 or higher and 4.2 or lower, and a molar ratio (S/P) of a content of S to a content of P in the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material is 3.8 or higher and 4.2 or lower (Page 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to mix lithium nitride with lithium sulfide and phosphorous sulfide such that a molar ratio (Li/P) of a content of Li to a content of P in the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material is 3.0 or higher and 4.2 or lower, and a molar ratio (S/P) of a content of S to a content of P in the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material is 3.8 or higher and 4.2 or lower because better lithium ion conductivity can be obtained as taught by Matsuyama (Page 3).
Regarding claims 10 & 12, Senga as modified by Matsuyama teaches the method of claim 1. Senga further teaches an exemplary embodiment in which the temperature of the heating unit is increased from room temperature (i.e about 20°C-25°C) to an annealing temperature T1 of 260°C at a rate of 10°C/min and cooling back to room temperature after reaching T1. Accordingly, the total time of B2 and B3 in this case would be 24 mins. However, Senga more broadly teaches an annealing temperature of up to 360°C. When the annealing temperature is from 320°C to 360°C, the total duration of B2 and B3 would read on the present range of 0.5 hours to 8 hours. Moreover, while the exemplary embodiment in Senga does not appear to hold the annealing temperature for more than 10 mins (corresponding to the time for each temperature increase), Senga notes that “the firing time is not particularly limited insofar as the ion conductivity sufficiently increases. The firing time may be extremely short or may be long” ([0042]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to optimize the total time B2 and B3 in view of optimizing the ion conductivity and reducing heating costs.
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senga (US 2010/0151335 A1) and Matsuyama (JP 2015146239 A), as applied to claims 1-4, 8 & 10-12 above, and further in view of Higuchi (US 2014/0315103 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Senga as modified by Matsuyama teaches the method of claim 1 but is silent as to the heating including conductive heat transfer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use conductive heat transfer heating by using a hot plates to perform the heating step of Senga as a suitable means for producing a sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material as taught by Higuchi ([0216] & [0231]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant’s arguments that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Senga with the teachings of Matsuyama, the examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, contrary to Applicants’ assertions that there is no motivation to modify Senga’s method in view of the teachings of Matsuyama, it is noted that Matsuyama similarly teaches a method of manufacturing a sulfide-based solid electrolyte in a vitreous, in which lithium nitride is mixed along with lithium sulfide and phosphorous sulfide such that a molar ratio Li/P ranges from 3 to 4.2 and a molar ratio of S/P ranges from 3.8 to 4.2 in view of obtaining better lithium ion conductivity as taught by Matsuyama. Specifically, Matsuyma teaches that when lithium nitride (Li3N) is mixed with lithium sulfide (Li2S) and phosphorous sulfide (P2S5), “the lithium ion conductivity of the solid electrolyte can be improved by increasing the Li composition of Li3PS4 by using Li3N. On the other hand, when the mixing amount of Li3N is increased, Li3N reacts with P2S5, and Li3N-derived Li becomes Li2S. Since Li2S has low lithium ion conductivity, it becomes a factor to reduce lithium ion conductivity of the solid electrolyte material. Therefore, the present inventors diligently studied to reduce the content of Li2S in the obtained solid electrolyte material. As a result, it has been found that the content of Li2S can be reduced by increasing the mixing ratio of P2S5, which is one of the raw materials, than in the past, and as a result, the lithium ion conductivity of the obtained solid electrolyte can be further improved. Therefore, in the present embodiment, as described later, the mixing ratio of P2S5 is increased to suppress the content of Li2S. As described above, by using Li3N to increase the Li composition, increase the proportion of P2S5 and reduce the content of Li2S, the molar ratio of Li / P and the molar ratio of S / P are Not within the above range. When the molar ratio of Li / P and the molar ratio of S / P are within the above ranges, the stability of the compound and the amount of Li composition and Li2S are highly balanced, and as a result, high lithium ion conductivity is exhibited. It is thought that it was connected”. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Senga to include lithium nitride in the raw material mixture such that the claimed Li/P and S/P are obtained in view of improving the lithium ion conductivity as taught by Matsuyama.
Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 1-5, 8 & 10-12 stand rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm (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, BARBARA GILLIAM can be reached on (571)272-1330. 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.
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights