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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 22, 2025 has been entered.
Summary
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted December 22, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1 and 11 are amended, claims 2-10 and 12-16 are canceled, and claims 24-25 are withdrawn from consideration, resulting in claims 1, 11, and 17-23 pending for examination.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. In the instant case, the phrase “disclosed are” is used in line 1 of the abstract (filed August 5, 2022).
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.
Claims 1, 11, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno (Ohno et al. Further Evidence for Energy Landscape Flattening in the Superionic Argyrodites Li6+xP1-xMxS5I (M = Si, Ge, Sn). Chemistry of Materials. 31, 4936-4944. (2019)) in view of Kraft (Kraft et al. Influence of Lattice Polarizability on the Ionic Conductivity in the Lithium Superionic Argyrodites Li6PS5X (X = Cl, Br, I). Journal of the American Chemical Society. 139, 10909-10918 (2017)).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Ohno teaches a solid ion conductor compound represented by Formula 1 (Li6.25P0.75Si0.25S5I, Fig. 2) of instant claim 1 having an argyrodite-type crystal structure (title), wherein M1 is an element substituted at P sites and has a larger ionic radius than that of P (Si, pg. 4939 left column paragraphs 2-3), M2 is an element selected from elements of Group 17 in the periodic table (I, Fig. 2), and 4≤x≤8, 0<y<1, 0<v<1, 0<z<6, 0<w<3, 0≤w′<3, and y≥v (x=6.25, y=0.75, v=0.25, z=5, w=1, w′=0 Li6.25P0.75Si0.25S5I, Fig. 2).
Ohno does not teach a solid ion conductor compound wherein M3 is present (w′ ≠ 0).
Kraft teaches solid ion conductors for use in solid electrolytes for solid-state batteries, as taught by Ohno, having an argyrodite crystal structure (Kraft title) that include Cl, Br, I, or combinations of thereof (Kraft abstract). Kraft teaches that the polarizability and performance of these solid ion conductors can be controlled by tuning the “fractional occupancy of the halide anions” (Kraft abstract), including ion conductivity (Kraft Fig. 6c). Kraft teaches the summation of the stoichiometric amounts of the halides being 1 (w + w′ = 1; Kraft Fig. 6).
Since Kraft teaches that the performance of solid ion conductors can be controlled by tuning the fractional occupancy of halide ions, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Cl or Br to the solid ion conductor compound of Ohno in an amount that results in w + w′ = 1, as taught by Kraft and thus resulting in the values of w and w′ falling within the claimed range of greater than 0 and less than 3, in order to obtain a solid ion conductor compound with suitable ion conductivity and performance for a desired application.
Modified Ohno further teaches the compound represented by Formula 1 of instant claim 1 being represented by Formula 2b and formula Li1+a-(b+c)P1-aSiaS6-(b+c)ClbIc or Li1+a-(b+c)P1-aSiaS6-(b+c)BrbIc of instant claim 11 (Li6.25P0.75Si0.25S5I with the addition of Cl or Br, as described above, Ohno Fig. 2; a=0.25, b + c = 1), wherein M2 is I and M3 is Cl or Br and a is 0.25.
Regarding claim 17, Ohno in view of Kraft teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Modified Ohno is silent to the ionic conductivity. It is reasonable to presume that the ionic conductivity being 1.0 mS/cm or greater at 25°C is inherent to modified Ohno. Support for said presumption is found in that the solid ion conductor of modified Ohno and the claimed invention both have an argyrodite-type structure and a formula represented by Formula 1 and Formula 2b of instant claim 1, wherein M1 is an element substituted at P sites that has a larger ionic radius than that of P and M2 and M3 are each a different element from group 17 of the periodic table, and the stoichiometric amounts are within the claimed ranges of instant claim 1.
Therefore, the solid ion conductor of modified Ohno is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 18, Ohno in view of Kraft teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Modified Ohno is silent to an ionic conductivity retention ratio of the solid ion conductor.
It is reasonable to presume that the ionic conductivity retention ratio is inherent to modified Ohno. Support for said presumption is found in that the solid ion conductor of modified Ohno and the claimed invention both have an argyrodite-type structure and a formula represented by Formula 1 and Formula 2b of instant claim 1, wherein M1 is an element substituted at P sites that has a larger ionic radius than that of P and M2 and M3 are each a different element from group 17 of the periodic table, and the stoichiometric amounts are within the claimed ranges of instant claim 1.
Therefore, the solid ion conductor of modified Ohno is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 19, Ohno in view of Kraft teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Ohno does not teach an embodiment in which the solid ion conductor is used in a solid electrolyte. However, Ohno teaches that materials for solid electrolytes such as lithium thiophosphate are known in the field to demonstrate “very promising properties for solid-state batteries” (Ohno abstract) and teaches the improvement in ionic conductivity through the use of Si and Sn substitution into the structure.
Since Ohno teaches that their solid ion conductors have improved ionic conductivity and are an improvement over other commonly used solid ion conductors using in solid electrolytes, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the solid ion conductor of Ohno in a solid electrolyte, in order to obtain a solid electrolyte with desired ionic conductivity.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno in view of Kraft, as applied to instant claim 1 above, and in further view of Schneider (US 2018/0351148 A1).
Regarding claims 20, Ohno in view of Kraft teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Ohno does not explicitly teach an embodiment wherein the solid ion conductor is included an electrochemical cell.
However, Schneider teaches that a solid ion conductor may be incorporated in “a protective layer for an electrode, a solid electrolyte layer, and/or any other appropriate component within the electrochemical cell” (Schneider abstract). Schneider further teaches that a solid electrolyte layer (Schneider [170]), a cathode layer comprising a cathode active material (Schneider [171-172]) and anode layer comprising an anode active material (Schneider [184]) may comprise the solid ion conductor. Schneider teaches that electrolytes function as a medium for ion transport and storage and solid electrolytes additionally function as a separator between the anode and the cathode (Schneider [162]).
Since Schneider and Ohno both teach solid ion conductors and Schneider teaches that the solid ion conductor may be included in the cathode, anode, and electrolyte layers, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate an electrochemical cell comprising a cathode layer including a cathode active material layer, an anode layer including an anode active material layer, and an electrolyte layer disposed between the cathode layer and the anode layer, wherein the cathode layer and the anode layer each include the solid ion conductor compound of Ohno, in order to obtain an electrochemical cell with suitable performance for a desired application.
Regarding claim 21, Ohno in view of Kraft and Schneider teaches all features of claims 1 and 20, as described above. Ohno further teaches that solid ion conductors, such as those described in Ohno, may be used in all-solid-state batteries to promote ion conductivity (Ohno abstract). Ohno does not teach an embodiment wherein the solid ion conductor is used in an all-solid-state battery.
Since Ohno teaches that the solid ion conductors are used in all-solid-state batteries, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate an all-solid-state battery including the solid ion conductor of Ohno in order to obtain a battery with desired ionic conductivity.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno in view of Kraft and Schneider, as applied to instant claims 1 and 20 above, and in further view of Ho (US 2014/0329126 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Ohno in view of Kraft and Schneider teaches all features of claims 1 and 20, as described above. Ohno does not teach the anode active material layer including an anode active material and a binder, and the anode active material being a mixture of amorphous carbon and one or more of the elements recited in instant claim 22.
Ho teaches an anode active material layer (negative electrode) comprising a negative active material, a conductive additive, and a binder (Ho [44]). Ho teaches that amorphous carbon is a known and suitable anode active material (Ho [44]). Ho further teaches that wires of metals such as gold, silver, and aluminum are known and suitable conductive additives for use in the anode (Ho [44]).
Since Ho teaches an anode active material layer comprising an anode active material and binder, and that amorphous carbon and wires of metals such as gold, silver, and aluminum are known and suitable for use in anode active material layers (negative electrodes), it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate an electrochemical cell, including the solid ion conductor of Ohno, wherein the anode active material layer includes amorphous carbon, a binder, and wires of gold, silver, or aluminum, in order to obtain an electrochemical cell with performance suitable for a desired application.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno in view of Kraft and Schneider, as applied to instant claims 1 and 20 above, and in further view of Balogh (US 20190319259 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Ohno in view of Kraft and Schneider teaches all features of claims 1 and 20, as described above. Ohno does not teach a metal layer disposed between an anode current collector of the anode layer and the anode active material layer.
Balogh teaches an electrode assembly (Balogh abstract) comprising an anode layer comprising an anode active material layer (100, Balogh [51]), a current collector (82 or 83, Balogh [51]), and a metal layer disposed between the anode current collector and the anode active material layer (intermediate layer 84, Balogh [51]), wherein the metal layer improves adhesion between the current collector and the anode active material layer and comprises lithium or lithium alloy (Balogh, [51]).
Since Balogh teaches that the addition of a metal layer between the current collector and active material layer improves adhesion, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a metal layer comprising lithium or a lithium alloy in between an anode current collector and an anode active material layer in the electrochemical cell taught by Ohno in view of Schneider in order to improve adhesion between the anode current collector and the anode active material layer.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 112(a)
The rejections of claims 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) are withdrawn due to Applicant’s cancelation of claims 15-16 in the responsive received on December 22, 2025.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 112(b)
The rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is overcome by Applicant’s amendments to claim 11 in the responsive received on December 22, 2025. This rejection of claim 11 is withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 103
The rejections of claims 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno in view of Kraft and in further view of Holger are withdrawn due to Applicant’s cancelation of claims 12-14 in the response received on December 22, 2025.
The rejections of claims 3-8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno in view of Kraft are withdrawn due to Applicant’s cancelation of claims 3-8 and 10 in the response received on December 22, 2025.
The rejections of claims 2 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno in view of Kraft and Schneider are withdrawn due to Applicant’s cancelation of claims 2 and 9 in the response received on December 22, 2025.
Applicant's arguments filed December 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 10 of the response, Applicant appears to allege that “the Ohno reference condemns the range of x being 0.2-0.3”.
This argument is not persuasive. Ohno teaches x being 0.25, which falls within the claimed range of 0.2 ≤ x ≤ 0.3 (Ohno Fig. 2, Li6.25P0.75Si0.25S5I). An excerpt from the caption of Figure 2 is shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
71
1185
media_image1.png
Greyscale
On pages 10-11 of the response, Applicant appears to allege that the claimed invention yields unexpected results due to “improved moisture stability and oxidation stability”. Applicant states that “the cited references fail to acknowledge such surprising and unexpected results”.
It is noted that it is the burden of Applicant to provide evidence that establishes that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b)(I). Applicants have the burden of explaining proffered data. See MPEP 716.02(b)(II). It is further noted that in order to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, Applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP 716.02(d) II. Additionally, the claims must be commensurate in scope with the proffered data to provide a nexus between the claims and the data establishing evidence of unexpected results. See MPEP 716.02(d).
In response to Applicant's argument that the cited references do not disclose the improvements in moisture and oxidation stability, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhao (Zhao, F. et al. A Versatile Sn-Substituted Argyrodite Sulfide Electrolyte for All-Solid-State Li Metal Batteries. Advanced Energy Materials. 10, 9, 1903422. First published January 30, 2020): appears to disclose a solid ion conductor compound having an argyrodite type crystal structure and comprising, Li, P, S, I, and Sn (Zhao abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/J.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights