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
Claims 1, 3 are amended.
Claims 2, 4-9, 11-12, 14-15 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3, 10, 13, 16, 17-19 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/21/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the mailing date of this office action, the examiner notes that applicant has not filed an information disclosure statement.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed on 11/21/2025 have been entered.
The 112b rejection for Claims 3 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duggal et al (US 20210359338 A1) in view of Kim et al (US 10020536 B2) further in view of Vassilis et al, Chapter 3 - Heterogeneous Processes and Reactor Analysis, “Adsorption, Ion Exchange and Catalysis”, Elsevier, 2006,
Regarding Claims 1, and 3,
Duggal teaches a method involving a sulfide solid electrolyte (Paragraph 0050; porous ceramic electrolyte such as Li6PS5Cl), and coating the electrolyte with carbon dioxide gas (which reacts with the ceramic material to form a coating). Coating of the electrolyte structure is formed by flowing carbon dioxide gas through the electrolyte structure (Paragraph 0071).
Because Duggal teaches the same sulfide solid electrolyte as applicant (Paragraph 0035 of instant specification) and because applicant simply states that this specific electrolyte and the phosphorus-sulfur structure is dissociable, thus when it contacts carbon dioxide, it will adsorb as claimed. See MPEP 2112.01 II. Furthermore, per applicant, the method by which the carbon dioxide interacts with the electrolyte is simply as a gas either in a closed chamber or hollow tube and thus, because Duggal likewise teaches the electrolyte as being exposed to carbon dioxide (Paragraph 0071), it will partially or fully adsorb with carbon dioxide as claimed. Duggal even states that “the ceramic matrix is coated by infiltrating the porous electrolyte structure with carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide gas reacts with the ceramic material to form a coating. In one aspect, the coating on the ceramic matrix is up to about 1 μm thick. In another aspect, the coating has a thickness of about 500 nm to about 1 μm. The presence of a coating in Duggal implies at least a partial or complete chemisorption/adsorption layer of carbon dioxide on the solid sulfide electrolyte.
Duggal teaches that a carbon dioxide coating for the electrolyte structure can be formed by flowing carbon dioxide gas through the electrolyte structure. However, Duggal does not teach that the sulfide solid electrolyte and carbon dioxide are contacted at room temperature or lower.
Kim teaches a method for preparing a sulfide solid electrolyte by forming a stabilization layer on the surface through treatment with a reactive gas. The sulfide solid electrolyte is a mixture of Li2S and P2S5 (Column 4, Line 61-67). The reactive gas can be carbon dioxide as stated in Column 5, Line 55-57. The reactive gas may be supplied to the electrolyte in a closed system container, injected into the container, or continuously supplied in an open system at a constant flow rate (Column 6, Lines 9-16). Furthermore, Kim also states that the treatment is performed at various temperatures ranging from room temperature 25 C to higher. This range includes the claimed “room temperature” value. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the temperature condition of Kim in order to form a stabilization layer to improve the air stability of the sulfide solid electrolyte.
Duggal does not expressly teach the use of a closed chamber, and contacting the carbon dioxide for a period of time. Duggal also does not teach the use of a hollow tube, and filling with carbon dioxide from an opening of the hollow tube.
However, as stated above Kim teaches the use of a closed system container or continuous open system to contact the carbon dioxide and sulfide solid electrolyte. Furthermore, Vassilis teaches types of heterogenous reactors commonly used for gas-solid interaction such as batch agitated reactor which is a tank type reactor as show in image below (Pages 73-75). This is a closed chamber reactor that can be utilized for contacting the carbon dioxide with solid sulfide electrolyte.
PNG
media_image1.png
205
283
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Vassilis also teaches heterogenous reactors for gas-solid interaction such as fixed bed reactor wherein a gas flows at a constant rate over a fixed-bed of solids placed in a tubular vessel (Pages 73-75). This is a tube type reactor that can be utilized for contacting the carbon dioxide with solid sulfide electrolyte.
PNG
media_image2.png
198
202
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The interaction between sulfide solid and carbon dioxide is essentially a gas-solid adsorption interaction that can be performed in similar vessels. Equipment related to gas-solid adsorption is also well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a closed chamber or a hollow tube in order to enable adsorption reaction between gas and solid.
Regarding the claimed limitation of degree of saturation of the carbon dioxide close to 100% or above, this depends on the materials contacting and the conditions. The teachings of Duggal, Kim and Vassilis combined teach the electrolyte, carbon dioxide gas, temperature, and vessels/systems used for contacting similar to the ones used in the claimed invention. The instant specification also states that the degree of saturation is dependent on the processing temperature and pressure (Paragraph 30 and 31). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the degree of saturation of the carbon dioxide would be achieved to be 100% or above due to similar process conditions.
Regarding Claim 10,
Duggal teaches the use of Li6PS5Cl (Paragraph 0050), which is a mixture of (100-x)Li2S-xP2S5 and lithium compound (LiX). Li6PS5Cl is provided as an example in instant specification, Paragraph 0041.
Regarding Claim 16,
Duggal teaches a sulfide solid electrolyte (Paragraph 0050; porous ceramic electrolyte such as Li6PS5Cl), and coating the electrolyte with carbon dioxide gas (which reacts with the ceramic material to form a coating). Coating for the electrolyte structure is formed by flowing carbon dioxide gas through the electrolyte structure (Paragraph 0071).
Regarding Claim 17,
Duggal teaches the use of Li6PS5Cl as electrolyte (Paragraph 0050), which is a mixture of (100-x)Li2S-xP2S5 and lithium compound (LiX). Li6PS5Cl example is provided in instant specification, Paragraph 0041.
Regarding Claim 19,
Duggal teaches a solid state battery cell comprising a cathode, an anode, and a solid ceramic electrolyte (solid sulfide type), and providing an ionically insulating coating by infiltrating the porous electrolyte with carbon dioxide (and attaching to the surface of sulfide solid electrolyte).
Claims 13, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duggal in view of Kim, and Vassilis, and further in view of Shaojie Chen et al, “Sulfide solid electrolytes for all-solid-state lithium batteries: Structure, conductivity, stability and application”, Energy Storage Materials, Volume 14, 2018,
Regarding Claim 13,
Duggal does not teach that the lithium compound comprises lithium chloride, lithium bromide, lithium iodide or combination thereof, and the sulfur compound comprises germanium disulfide, silicon disulfide, tin disulfide, molybdenum disulfide, aluminum sulfide, nickel sulfide or combination thereof.
However, Shaojie teaches the use of lithium halides (LiX, X = F, Cl, Br, I) to improve the conductivities by interstitial doping. Shaojie also teaches the use of Li2S-MxSy-P2S5 with higher conductivities that are achieved by incorporating small amounts of the third component such as GeS2, SiS2, SnS2 or Al2S3 (germanium disulfide, silicon disulfide, tin disulfide, aluminum sulfide). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compounds stated in these claims in order to improve lithium ion conductivities of the solid sulfide electrolyte.
PNG
media_image3.png
345
675
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18,
Duggal does not teach that the lithium compound comprises lithium chloride, lithium bromide, lithium iodide or combination thereof, and the sulfur compound comprises germanium disulfide, silicon disulfide, tin disulfide, molybdenum disulfide, aluminum sulfide, nickel sulfide or combination thereof.
However, Shaojie teaches the use of lithium halides (LiX, X = F, Cl, Br, I) to improve the conductivities by interstitial doping. Shaojie also teaches the use of Li2S-MxSy-P2S5 with higher conductivities that are achieved by incorporating small amounts of the third component such as GeS2, SiS2, SnS2 or Al2S3 (germanium disulfide, silicon disulfide, tin disulfide, aluminum sulfide). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compounds stated in these claims in order to improve lithium ion conductivities of the solid sulfide electrolyte.
References of Interest
Examiner notes Muhammad Atif et al, “Physisorption and chemisorption trends in surface modification of carbon black”, Surfaces and Interfaces, Volume 31, 2022 as a reference of interest. Atif discusses adsorption of gas on a solid surface forming chemical bonds (as observed in chemisorption). The reference shows surface modification of carbon black with sulfur by various chemisorption means (forming carbon-sulfur bonds).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/21/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With regards to amended claims, see rejection of Claim 1 in this office action in view of Duggal, Kim and Vassilis. The teachings of Duggal, Kim and Vassilis combined teach the electrolyte, carbon dioxide gas, temperature, and vessels/systems used for contacting similar to the ones used in the claimed invention. Because Duggal teaches the same sulfide solid electrolyte as applicant (Paragraph 0035 of instant specification) and because applicant simply states that this specific electrolyte and the phosphorus-sulfur structure is dissociable, thus when it contacts carbon dioxide, it will adsorb as claimed. See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Applicant argues that Duggal does not teach adsorption of CO2 onto a sulfide solid electrolyte surface under room temperature or lower, and implies a chemical reaction process. Examiner asserts that Duggal is silent with respect to temperature related to CO2 contacting method step. In paragraph 0071, Duggal teaches about the coating step but does not reference any temperature limitation associated with the step. Duggal simply states that “Coating for the electrolyte structure can be formed by flowing carbon dioxide gas through the electrolyte structure.”
Applicant argues that Duggal discloses thermal reversibility which disproves the formation of lithium carbonate. Applicant also argues that Duggal explicitly teaches the formation of a stable salt coating. Applicant has not provided any referential paragraph numbers from Duggal to support their argument. Examiner has found to reference in Duggal towards thermal reversibility or an explicit teaching of the formation of a stable salt coating. Examiner points out that the argument about thermal reversibility is towards an unclaimed feature of the invention. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., thermal reversibility) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that Duggal teaches the coating to be lithium carbonate. Examiner asserts that Duggal teaches “in one aspect, the coating is lithium carbonate”. This is akin to an embodiment of the invention, and does not limit the composition of the coating to just lithium carbonate. Hence, upon contacting sulfide solid electrolyte and carbon dioxide, an adsorption product can be formed on the coating layer.
Applicant argues that the references of Shaojie does not teach the mechanism of adsorbing carbon dioxide onto a sulfide solid electrolyte surface, and that the combination of Duggal and Shaojie fail to provide motivation or reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the specific carbon dioxide adsorption method in claim 1. Examiner points out that Shaojie is used to support the rejection of Claims 13 and 18. Shaojie is a review article about sulfide solid electrolytes commonly used in all solid state batteries, and teaches the specific types of electrolytes that are provided as limitations in Claims 13 and 18. The combination of Duggal, Kim, Vassilis and Shaojie teaches the combined limitations of claims 13 and 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached on 571-272-8519. 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.
/SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783