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
The Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 07/01/2026, has been entered. Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 11, and 17 are amended; claims 2-3, 6, 9-10, 12, 14, and 18-23 stand as originally or previously presented; and claims 13 and 15-16 are cancelled. Support for the amendments is found in the original filing, and there is no new matter.
Upon considered said amendments and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C.103 rejection set forth in Office Action mailed 04/01/2026 in view of Claims 1 and 17 has been maintained (and altered as required by amendment), as set forth below.
Upon considered said amendments and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C.103 rejection in view of Claims 7-8 set forth in Office Action mailed 04/01/2026 has been withdrawn. Amended and new grounds of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing to newly cited art and the originally cited art are set forth below as necessitated by the claim 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-12, 17-19, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20210094824 A1, hereinafter Lee), filed in Notice of References Cited, dated 06/23/2025.
Regarding Claims 1-3, Lee discloses the limitations regarding comprising a solid material (Lee, solid ion conductor, [0044]) according to general formula (I) as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
30
188
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X is selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, I and Br (Claim 1), and more specifically Cl (Claim 2);
0.01 ≤ x ≤ 0.06 (Claim 1), or more specifically 0.02 ≤ x ≤ 0.06 (Claim 3);
and 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.5 (Lee, a solid ion conductor represented by Formula 2a has an argyrodite-type crystal structure, and Formula 2a is Li7-x-zM1xPS6-zClz, wherein M1 may be at least one of Cu, and the conditions of 0<x<0.05 and 1≤z≤2 are satisfied, [0044];
Cu = Cu, 0<x<0.1, overlapping the claimed range of 0.01 ≤ x ≤ 0.06 (Claim 1), and more specifically 0.02 ≤ x ≤ 0.06 (Claim 3);
P = P, and 1 = 1;
S = S, and y = 0, falling within the claimed range of 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.5;
X = Cl, and 1≤z≤2, overlapping the requirement that Cl has a subscript of 1, and meeting the requirement that X is selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, I, and Br (Claim 1), and more specifically Cl (Claim 2)
Formula 2a of Lee largely overlaps the claimed general formula (I), especially when y = 0.
wherein the solid material comprises at least peaks at position of: 15.65° +/- 0.50, 25.53° +/- 0.50, 30.16° +/- 0.50, and 31.52 +/- 0.50 (2θ) when analyzed by x-ray diffraction using CuKα radiation at 25°C (Lee, the solid ion conductor compound may have a peak, when analyzed by X-ray diffraction using CuKα radiation, for example, at a location of about 15.65, °2θ±0.50°2θ, about 25.48°2θ±0.50°2θ, about 30.01°2θ±0.50°2θ, about 31.38°2θ±0.50°2θ, Annotated Figure 1 below, [0065]).
PNG
media_image2.png
432
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the limitations regarding a solid material (Lee, solid ion conductor, [0044]).
MPEP 2112.01 teaches that 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With respect to the limitations cell parameters ranging from 9.680 Angstrom to 9.848 Angstrom, as measured by x-ray diffraction using CuKα radiation at 250 C, it is submitted that such limitations are simply measurements of, and thus descriptions of, inherent properties of the recited sulfide solid electrolyte.
Applicant discloses the crystallographic space group of the solid material of the present invention is preferably space group 226 (F43m). In this space group, cell parameters of the solid materials of the present invention may range from 9,680 Angstrom to 9,840 Angstrom, as measured by x-ray diffraction using CuKa radiation at 25°C (see Instant Specification Page 9, Lines 11-14)
Accordingly, it is reasonably interpreted that the crystallographic space group is critical to the recited cell parameters such that it would fulfil the recited measurements and necessarily possess the inherent properties.
Lee discloses that the solid ion conductor compounds belong to the F-43m space group, having a cubic crystal system structure, and have an argyrodite-type crystal structure (Lee, [0163]). It is submitted that the solid ion conductor of Lee is substantially similar to the instant solid material such that the solid ion conductor of Lee would reasonably possess the same properties and exhibit the same results.
Therefore, based upon such substantial similarities, it appears reasonable that the solid ion conductor of Lee would inherently possess physical properties, e.g. cell parameters, such that the solid ion conductor of Lee would necessarily fulfill the recited limitations, i.e. cell parameters ranging from 9.680 Angstrom to 9.848 Angstrom, as measured by x-ray diffraction using CuKα radiation at 250 C.
Assuming, arguendo, that such properties are not inherent, it is submitted that before the effective filing date of the current invention, one having ordinary skill in the art would find such properties obvious over the instant solid material. The skilled artisan would reasonably find that the disclosed solid ion conductor of Lee is so similar to the instant solid material, that the prior art solid ion conductor would also exhibit cell parameters ranging from 9.680 Angstrom to 9.848 Angstrom, as measured by x-ray diffraction using CuKα radiation at 250 C.
Regarding Claim 6, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the limitations regarding a solid material (Lee, solid ion conductor, [0044]), wherein it is in powder form (Lee, the solid electrolyte may be in the form of a powder, [0070]) with a distribution of particle diameters having a D50 between 0.05 µm and 10 µm (Lee, an average particle diameter of the solid electrolyte may be from about 1 µm to about 10 µm, [0078]; the disclosed range of about 1 µm to about 10 µm falls within the claimed range of 0.05 µm and 10 µm).
Regarding Claims 17-19, Lee discloses the limitations regarding electrochemical device (Claim 18) (Lee, electrochemical cell, [0072]) and a solid state battery (Claim 19) (Lee, all-solid secondary battery, [0072]) comprising a solid electrolyte (Claim 17) (Lee, the solid ion conductor compound is used as a solid electrolyte, [0077]) comprising at least a solid material (Lee, solid ion conductor, [0044]) according to general formula (I) as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
30
188
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X is selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, I and Br;
0.01 ≤ x ≤ 0.06; and 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.5 (Lee, a solid ion conductor represented by Formula 2a has an argyrodite-type crystal structure, and Formula 2a is Li7-x-zM1xPS6-zClz, wherein M1 may be at least one of Cu, and the conditions of 0<x<0.05 and 1≤z≤2 are satisfied, [0044];
Cu = Cu, 0<x<0.1, overlapping the claimed range of 0.01 ≤ x ≤ 0.06;
P = P, and 1 = 1;
S = S, and y = 0, falling within the claimed range of 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.5;
X = Cl, and 1≤z≤2, overlapping the requirement that Cl has a subscript of 1, and meeting the requirement that X is selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, I, and Br (Claim 1);
Formula 2a of Lee largely overlaps the claimed general formula (I), especially when y = 0.
wherein the solid material comprises at least peaks at position of: 15.65° +/- 0.50, 25.53° +/- 0.50, 30.16° +/- 0.50, and 31.52 +/- 0.50 (2θ) when analyzed by x-ray diffraction using CuKα radiation at 25°C (Lee, the solid ion conductor compound may have a peak, when analyzed by X-ray diffraction using CuKα radiation, for example, at a location of about 15.65, °2θ±0.50°2θ, about 25.48°2θ±0.50°2θ, about 30.01°2θ±0.50°2θ, about 31.38°2θ±0.50°2θ, Figure 1, [0065]).
Regarding Claims 21, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the limitations regarding an electrode (Lee, cathode, [0084]) comprising at least:
a metal substrate (Lee, cathode current collector uses an aluminum plate, [0097]);
directly adhered onto said metal substrate (Lee, cathode active material layer over a current collector, [0065]), at least one layer made of a composition comprising:
(i) a solid material (Lee, cathode active material layer may further include the solid ion conductor, [0092]) of formula (I) as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
30
188
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X is selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, I and Br;
0.01 ≤ x ≤ 0.06; and 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.5 (Lee, a solid ion conductor represented by Formula 2a has an argyrodite-type crystal structure, and Formula 2a is Li7-x-zM1xPS6-zClz, wherein M1 may be at least one of Cu, and the conditions of 0<x<0.05 and 1≤z≤2 are satisfied, [0044];
Cu = Cu, 0<x<0.05, overlapping the claimed range of 0.01 ≤ x ≤ 0.06;
P = P, and 1 = 1;
S = S, and y = 0, falling within the claimed range of 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.5;
X = Cl, and 1≤z≤2, overlapping the requirement that Cl has a subscript of 1, and meeting the requirement that X is selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, I, and Br;
Formula 2a of Lee largely overlaps the claimed general formula (I), especially when y = 0.
(ii) at least one electro-active compound (EAC) (Lee, cathode active material may be a lithium transition metal oxide, [0086]);
(iv) optionally at least one electro-conductive material (ECM) (Lee, cathode active material layer may include a conductive material, such as carbon black, [0094]);
(v) optionally a lithium salt (LIS) (Lee, the cathode active material includes a lithium salt, [0088]);
(vi) optionally at least one polymeric binding material (P) (Lee, the cathode active material layer may include the binder, such as polyvinylidene fluoride, [0093]).
Regarding Claim 22, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the limitations regarding a separator (Lee, solid electrolyte layer located between the cathode layer and the anode layer, [0075]), comprising at least the solid material (Lee, the solid ion conductor compound represented by Formula 1 is used as the solid electrolyte, [0077]);
optionally at least one polymeric binding material (P) (Lee, the binder included in the solid electrolyte layer may be polyvinylidene fluoride, [0083]);
optionally at least one metal salt, (Lee, the sulfide based solid electrolyte may include at least one of Li2S, [0062]).
Claim(s) 4 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20210094824 A1, hereinafter Lee), as applied to Claim 1 above, and in view of Nazar et al. (US 20210323824 A1, hereinafter Nazar).
Regarding Claims 4, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the limitations regarding a solid material (Lee, solid ion conductor, [0044]). Lee is silent regarding a crystallization degree of the solid material is from 85% to 100%.
Nazar discloses a solid material (Nazar, solid lithium ion conducting material, Title), wherein a crystallization degree of the solid material is from 85% to 100% (Nazar, a solid material according to the invention typically contains a fraction consisting of one or more crystalline phases as detectable by the X-ray diffraction technique. Preferably said fraction of crystalline phases makes up 80% or more of the total weight of the solid material, [0140]; the disclosed range of 80% or more overlaps the claimed range of 85% to 100%).
Nazar teaches that a solid lithium ion conducting material comprising of this crystallinity will exhibit favorable lithium ion conductivity (Nazar, [0143]).
Lee and Nazar are analogous to the current invention as they are directed towards a solid ion conductor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to routinely design the solid material of Lee to have a crystallinity within the range 80% or more, as taught by Nazar, in order to achieve favorably lithium ion conductivity. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 23, modified Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee discloses the limitations regarding a solid material (Lee, solid ion conductor, [0044]). Modified Lee is silent regarding a ratio between an amount of structural units PS43- and an amount of structural units PO43- ranges from 1000:1 to 9:1.
Nazar discloses a solid material (Nazar, solid lithium ion conducting material, Title), wherein a ratio between an amount of structural units PS43- and an amount of structural units PO43- ranges from 1000:1 to 9:1 (Nazar, preferably a ratio between the amount of structural units PS43- and an amount of structural units PO43- is in the range of from 30:1 to 1.5:1, [0142]).
Nazar teaches that a higher ratio between the amount of structural units PS43- and structural units PO43-corresponds to a lower fraction of 0 which is difficult to obtain, because apparently a certain degree of replacement of sulfur in the structural units PS43- by oxygen inevitably occurs during the solvent based synthesis. At a lower ratio between the amount of structural units PS43- and structural units PO43-, corresponding to a higher fraction of O, the composition of the solid material is too far apart from the composition of the lithium argyrodites obtained by the conventional process involving reactive milling, and such different composition may have negative effects on the lithium ion conductivity, chemical and mechanical stability and/or processability (Nazar, [0142]).
Lee and Nazar are analogous to the current invention as they are all directed towards a solid ion conductor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to routinely design the solid ion conductor of Lee to have a ratio between the amount of structural units PS43- and an amount of structural units PO43- is in the range of from 30:1 to 1.5:1, as taught by Nazar, in order to improve lithium ion conductivity, chemical and mechanical stability and/or processability.
Claim(s) 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20210094824 A1, hereinafter Lee), as applied to Claim 1 above, and in view of Maruyama et al. (US 20180358653 A1, hereinafter Maruyama).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the limitations regarding a method for producing solid material (Lee, method of preparing solid ion conductor compound, [0138]) comprising at least bringing at least lithium sulfide, phosphorous sulfide, halogen compound and a copper compound, (Lee, combining Li2S as a lithium precursor, P2S5 as a phosphor precursor, LiCl as a chlorine precursor, and Cu2S as a copper precursor, [0138]), and optionally in one or more solvents (Lee, combining Li2S as a lithium precursor, P2S5 as a phosphor precursor, LiCl as a chlorine precursor, and Cu2S as a copper precursor, [0138]). Lee discloses that the starting materials may be milled with a ball mill or grinded (Lee, [0133]).
Lee is silent regarding each of which has an average particles size between 0.5 and 400 µm.
Maruyama discloses a method for producing solid material (Maruyama, method for producing a solid electrolyte, Abstract) comprising precursors (Maruyama, simple substance comprise lithium sulfide, phosphorus sulfide, and lithium halide, Claim 8), each of which has an average particles size between 0.5 and 400 µm (Maruyama, the volume-based mean particle diameter of the simple substance is set at 20 µm or less, and the simple substance may be grinded using a ball mill, [0062, 0064]).
Maruyama teaches that an argyrodite type solid electrolyte having high ion conductivity can be achieved while shortening the manufacturing time (Maruyama, [0015]).
Lee and Maruyama are analogous to the current invention as they are all directed towards a sulfide solid electrolyte.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to mill the starting materials of Lee to a volume-based mean particle diameter of 20 µm or less, in order to shorten the manufacturing time of an argyrodite type solid electrolyte.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee discloses the limitations regarding a process for the preparation of a solid material (Lee, method of preparing solid ion conductor compound, [0138]) comprising at least the process steps of:
a) obtaining a composition by admixing stoichiometric amounts of lithium sulfide, phosphorous sulfide, halogen compound and a copper compound, under an inert atmosphere (Lee, combining Li2S as a lithium precursor, P2S5 as a phosphor precursor, LiCl as a chlorine precursor, and Cu2S as a copper precursor in a stoichiometric ratio and grinding and mixing for 1 hour at 100 rpm in a planetary ball mill having a zirconia (YSZ) ball and having the Ar atmosphere, [0138]);
b) applying a mechanical treatment to the composition obtained (Lee, planetary ball mill having a zirconia (YSZ) ball, [0138]) in step a) to form an amorphized powder mixture (Maruyama, raw materials were milled to obtain a solid electrolyte precursor that has a halo pattern derived from glass, [0116-0117]);
d) heating the composition obtained in step b) or the obtained residue obtained in step c) at a temperature in a range of from 100°C to 700°C, under an inert atmosphere, thereby forming the solid material crystalline or a mixture of glass and crystalline (Lee, vacuum-sealed pellet was heated at 1.0° C/min from room temperature to 500° C. using an electric furnace, and then heat-treated at 500° C for 12 hours, and then cooled to room temperature at 1.0° C./min to prepare the solid ion conductor compound, and the solid ion conductor compounds belong to the F-43m space group, having a cubic crystal system structure, and have an argyrodite-type crystal structure, [0138, 0163]).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee discloses the limitations regarding a process (Lee, method of preparing solid ion conductor compound, [0138]) wherein the copper compound is selected from the group consisting of Cu2S (Lee, Cu2S, [0138]).
Regarding Claims 10, modified Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee discloses the limitations regarding a process (Lee, method of preparing solid ion conductor compound, [0138]), wherein the lithium sulfide is Li2S, the phosphorous sulfide is P2S5, the halogen compound is LiCl, and the copper compound is Cu2S (Lee, combining Li2S as a lithium precursor, P2S5 as a phosphor precursor, LiCl as a chlorine precursor, and Cu2S as a copper precursor in a stoichiometric ratio and grinding and mixing for 1 hour at 100 rpm in a planetary ball mill having a zirconia (YSZ) ball and having the Ar atmosphere, [0138]).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee discloses the limitations regarding a process (Lee, method of preparing solid ion conductor compound, [0138]). Lee is silent regarding the solvent is selected in the group consisting of alkanols; carbonates; acetates; ethers; organic nitriles; aliphatic hydrocarbons; and aromatic hydrocarbons.
However, Claim 8 discloses “optionally in one or more solvents,” so the solvent is optional.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee discloses the limitations regarding a process (Lee, method of preparing solid ion conductor compound, [0138]) wherein in the b) the mechanical treatment is performed by dry milling (Lee, planetary ball mill having a zirconia (YSZ) ball, [0138]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20210094824 A1, hereinafter Lee), as applied to Claim 1 above, and in view of Wang et al. (WO 2020214786 A1, citations from corresponding US 20220227624 A1, hereinafter Wang).
Regarding Claim 14, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the limitations regarding a process (Lee, method of preparing solid ion conductor compound, [0138]), said process comprising at least the process steps of
a') obtaining a solution by admixing stoichiometric amounts of lithium compounds, sulfide compounds, phosphorous compounds, halogen compound and a copper compound, under an inert atmosphere (Lee, combining Li2S as a lithium precursor, P2S5 as a phosphor precursor, LiCl as a chlorine precursor, and Cu2S as a copper precursor in a stoichiometric ratio and grinding and mixing for 1 hour at 100 rpm in a planetary ball mill having a zirconia (YSZ) ball and having the Ar atmosphere, [0138]), and
c') optionally heating the solid material as obtained in step b'), at a temperature in the range of from 100 °C to 700 °C, under an inert atmosphere (Lee, vacuum-sealed pellet was heated at 1.0° C/min from room temperature to 500° C. using an electric furnace, and then heat-treated at 500° C for 12 hours, and then cooled to room temperature at 1.0° C./min to prepare the solid ion conductor compound, [0138])
Lee is silent regarding one or more solvents, b') removing at least a portion of the one or more solvents from the solution as obtained in step a'), so that to obtain a solid material.
Wang discloses a process for the preparation of solid materials (Wang, method for wet chemical synthesis of lithium argyrodites, Abstract) a') obtaining a solution by admixing stoichiometric amounts of lithium compounds, sulfide compounds, phosphorous compounds, and a halogen compound, (Wang, dissolving a stoichiometric mixture of P2S5, Li2S, and LiCl, [0016]), in one or more solvents, under an inert atmosphere (Wang, in a small quantity of anhydrous ethanol (25 ml) in argon atmosphere, [0016]).
b') removing at least a portion of the one or more solvents from the solution as obtained in step a'), so that to obtain a solid material (Wang, then the solvent is evaporated above room temperature (e.g. more than 22° C.) under vacuum (not longer than 1 hour, preferably 40-50 minutes), [0016]);
c') optionally heating the solid material as obtained in step b'), at a temperature in the range of from 100 °C to 700 °C, under an inert atmosphere (Wang, the precipitate then is treated with heat (above 150° C for 1 hour) until the final product is synthesized, and annealing is permed at temperatures above 150° C under an Argon environment, [0016-0018]).
Wang teaches that a wet chemical synthesis method may be simpler, more efficient, requires shorter preparation times, results in more homogenous products with higher conductivities, and utilizes more environmentally friendly and affordable solvents (Wang, [0012]).
Lee and Wang are analogous to the current invention as they are all directed towards a sulfide-based solid material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to routinely design the solid ion conductor compound of Lee by using the wet chemical synthesis of lithium argyrodites method of Wang, in order to have a method that is simpler, more efficient, and requires shorter preparation times.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20210094824 A1, hereinafter Lee), as applied to Claim 17 above, and in view of Osada (US 20200136179 A1, hereinafter Osada), filed in Notice of References Cited, dated 06/23/2025.
Regarding Claims 20, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the limitations regarding a solid state battery (Lee, alkali metal ion battery comprising a solid electrolyte, [0088]) comprising a solid electrolyte (Lee, solid electrolyte composition, [0088]). Lee is silent regarding a vehicle comprising at least a solid state battery.
Osada discloses a vehicle (Osada, electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles, [0002]) comprising a solid state battery (Osada, an all-solid-state battery, [0088]) comprising a solid electrolyte (Osada, solid electrolyte layer, [0070]).
Osada teaches that batteries can be used for electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles (Osada, [0002]).
Lee and Osada are analogous to the current invention as they are directed towards solid state batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the solid state battery of Lee in a vehicle, as taught by Osada, because the usage of batteries in electric vehicles is known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (filed 07/01/2026) with respect to Claim(s) 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Lee does not report a peak at 15.65° +/- 0.50.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the sulfide solid electrolyte of Lee, specifically Example 2, has a peak at 15.65°, as indicated by the arrow in Annotated Figure 1 below. Example 2 has the composition of (Li5.69Cu0.06)PS4.75Cl1.25. The copper content of 0.06 falls within the claimed range of 0.01 ≤ x ≤ 0.06 (Claim 1), and more specifically 0.02 ≤ x ≤ 0.06 (Claim 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
400
630
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that the instantly claimed solid materials possess increased crystallinity when compared to Lee, as evidenced by the significantly sharper peaks in the XRD peak.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the sulfide solid electrolyte of Lee has a F-43m space group, has a cubic crystal system structure, and has an argyrodite-type crystal structure (Lee, [0163]), which is similar to the crystal structure of the instantly claimed solid material. Furthermore, the amorphous/crystallinity intensity is not commensurate with the scope of Claim 1.
Applicant argues that while Lee reports a F-43m space group, Lee does not necessarily teach the cell parameters of the instant claims.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the Applicant discloses the crystallographic space group of the solid material of the present invention is preferably space group 226 (F43m). In this space group, cell parameters of the solid materials of the present invention may range from 9,680 Angstrom to 9,840 Angstrom, as measured by x-ray diffraction using CuKa radiation at 25°C (see Instant Specification Page 9, Lines 11-14). Thus, it is determined that the F43m space group is responsible for the cell parameters, so the sulfide solid electrolyte of Lee that has a F-43m space group will have a cell parameter that ranges from 9,680 Angstrom to 9,840 Angstrom, unless proven otherwise by the Applicant.
Applicant argues that a solvent is required during the admixing of step A according to claim 11, which depends on claim 8.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that claim 8 discloses “optionally in one or more solvents” in lines 4-5, so claim 11 is rendered moot as a solvent is not required.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 10-14, filed 07/01/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lee et al. (US 20210094824 A1, hereinafter Lee), in view of Maruyama et al. (US 20180358653 A1, hereinafter Maruyama), as noted above.
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 KEVIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:50 - 7:50 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, NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/K.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights