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 .
Examiner Note
The examiner would like to note that the formula taught by the applicant may be present in the prior art but taught in a different mathematical or algebraic style. The examiner notes that these differences do not equate to the art “not teaching” the limitations of the present invention rather they are just taught using different mathematical methods.
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, 6, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama (US20220359910A1 with foreign priority extending to 12/11/2019).
Regarding claim 1, Nakayama discloses a solid material having a lithium, metal, phosphorous, sulfur, and halogen elements [0007-0012, Nakayama]. Nakayama further discloses a general formula LiaMbPScXd: wherein 3.0≤a≤6.5 (most preferably 4.0≤a≤6.0), 0.001≤b≤3.0 (most preferably 0.08≤b≤0.80), 3.5≤c≤5.5 (most preferably 4.2≤c≤5.0), 0.7≤d≤2.8 (most preferably 1.1≤a≤1.8) [0043-0049, Nakayama]. Where M is a metal with 1, 2, or 3 valence electrons and X is a halogen that is F, Cl, Br, and/or I [0025, 0027, Nakayama].
Nakayama provides teachings further narrowing down the scope of the molar ratios of the individual elements. Specifically, phosphorous is most preferably 7.9-8.2 mol% based on the total molar amount of constituent elements of sulfide solid electrolytes [0031, Nakayama]. The ratio of lithium to phosphorous is most preferably 4.6-5.5 [0032, Nakayama]. The ratio of sulfur to phosphorous is 4.3-4.6 [0033, Nakayama]. The ratio of halogen to phosphorous is 1.4-1.8 [0034, Nakayama].
Nakayama discloses that the metal element may be a divalent metal such as magnesium (Mg) and calcium (Ca) [0028, Nakayama].
"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.", see MPEP 2131.03.
Nakayama discloses explicit examples such as Li5.3M0.1PS4.4X1.7, M = Mg or Ca and X = Br and Cl [example 4 and 5, Nakayama]. This satisfies the applicant’s general formula when M = Mg or Ca then m = 2, y = 0.1, x = 0.7, n = 0.1, and a/c = 17
Li(6+2*0.1-0.7-2*0.1)M0.1PS(5+0.1-0.7)X(1+0.7) = Li(5.3)M0.1PS(4.4)X(1.7)
However, Nakayama is explicitly silent to 1) 0<n≤0.05 and 2) for the molar ratio X/M = a/c, the following condition is satisfied: 15.3 ≤ a/c ≤15.55.
However, prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would appreciate that the broader teachings of Nakayama include variations of the disclosed examples.
For instance, Nakayama discloses explicit examples such as Li5.3M0.1PS4.4X1.7, M = Mg or Ca and X = Br and Cl [example 4 and 5, Nakayama]. One would appreciate that similar variations of this formula such as (A) Li5.18M0.11PS4.35X1.7 or (B) Li5.35M0.1PS4.5X1.55
The above equation(s) satisfies all of Nakayama’s teachings for constructing a solid electrolyte material. Such as the molar ratio of phosphorous to total molar amount of the constituent elements of the electrolytes was 7.9-8.2 mol% ((A) 8.1 mol%; (B) 8.0 mol%) [0031, Nakayama], the ratio of lithium to phosphorous being between 4.6-5.5 ((A) Li/P = 5.18; (B) Li/P = 5.35) [0032, Nakayama], the ratio of sulfur to phosphorous being 4.3-4.6 ((A) S/P = 4.35; (B) S/P = 4.5)[0033, Nakayama], the ratio of halogen to phosphorous being 1.4-1.8 ((A) X/P = 1.7; (B) X/P = 1.55) [0034, Nakayama], the content of metal element to phosphorous being 0.08-0.65 ((A) M/P = 0.11; (B) M/P = 0.1) [0035, Nakayama]. Satisfying these ratios are known to A) improve lithium ion conductivity and B) suppress the generation of sulfide gas [0031-0035, Nakayama].
Additionally, the above formula’s have an:
x = 0.7 (A) and 0.55 (B)
y = 0.11 (A) and 0.10 (B)
n = 0.05 (A) (B)
m = 2 (A) (B)
X/M = a/c = 15.45 (A) and 15.55 (B)
molar ratio X/M = a/c of 15.45 (A) and 15.55 (B)
"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.", see MPEP 2131.03.
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Nakayama such that the solid material was (A) Li5.18M0.11PS4.35X1.7 or (B) Li5.35M0.1PS4.5X1.55 where M = Mg or Ca and X = Br and Cl. Both of these materials have structures which fall within a known range for producing solid materials with A) improve lithium ion conductivity and B) suppress the generation of sulfide gas [0031-0035, Nakayama].
In regards to claim 2, modified Nakayama teaches where M is Mg or Ca and y = 0.1 [example 4 and 5, Nakayama].
"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.", see MPEP 2131.03.
In regards to claim 3, modified Nakayama discloses that M may be Ca and X may be Cl [0025, 0028, Nakayama].
In regards to claim 6, modified Nakayama discloses a molar ratio of X/P being 1.4-1.8 which overlaps with the applicant’s claimed range of 1.45-1.6 [0034, Nakayama]. Furthermore Nakayama discloses the molar ratio of M/P = 0.08-0.65 which overlaps with the applicant’s claimed range of 0.01-0.15[0035, Nakayama]
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
In regards to claim 12 and 13, modified Nakayama discloses an electrochemical cell comprising a solid material wherein the solid material is a solid electrolyte (“separator”) between the positive and negative electrode [0014-0017, Nakayama].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Nakayama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xie (CN110931846A).
In regards to claim 5, modified Nakayama discloses the solid material, wherein X is Cl [0025, table 2, Nakayama].
However, Nakayama is silent to the metal being Al or Ga.
However, Xie discloses a solid electrolyte with a general formula Li6–nxMxPS5Br wherein M is preferably Al [0007-0010, Xie].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Nakayama such that the metal element was Al. The presence of aluminum in solid materials/electrolyte has been shown to have produce materials with higher electrolyte conductivity [0007, 0024, Xi].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for details.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Xie and Aihara in claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments in regards to Nakayama in claim 1 have been considered but are found to not be persuasive. Upon further consideration the teachings of Nakayama overlap with the limitations featured in the previous claim 7. See rejection of claim 1 above for further details.
No other arguments were presented, the examiner maintains the rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Miyashita (US20170222257A1) and Miyashita (US20170352916A1) each teach of a “n value” for sulfur. Or rather they teach that a variation in the halide concentration may be different than the variation in sulfur and lithium concentration. In the present invention this is seen as an increase in an “x” value for the halide while sulfur and lithium are changed by “n-x”.
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 QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights