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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues Takahashi’s example 4 contains all of the constituent elements of claim 1 except for the oxygen element. (p. 4). Applicant argues that since Takahashi’s example 4 does not show the claimed peaks, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that none of the examples would have the claimed peaks. (pp. 5 and 6). The examiner disagrees.
As explained in the previous office action, comparative example 3, which is relied upon in the rejection, meet the claimed molar ratios of X/P and O/P. Applicant does not show or explain how the molar ratio differences affect the XRD patterns. Indeed, as explained in the previous office action, the declaration is based on molar ratios of X/P and O/P outside that of the claimed invention and therefore, is not commensurate in scope of the claimed invention.
As such, the declaration and arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et all., WO 2019176895 (IDS of 11/4/22) relying on U.S. PGPub 2021/0013542 as English translation.
With regard to claims 1-5, Takahashi et al. teach a solid electrolyte comprising elemental lithium (Li), elemental phosphorous (P), elemental sulfur (S), and elemental halogen (Cl, Br), and oxygen (O). See abstract, [0002], [0010], [0018], [0020], [0021], [0023], [0024], [0029], [0031], and [0034].
Further, Takahashi et al. teach that the solid electrolyte has a crystalline phase with an argyrodite-type crystal structure. See abstract, [0002], [0009], [0010], [0011], [0018], and [0029].
In addition, Takahashi et al. teach a molar ratio of (halogen/phosphorous) Cl/P of 1.75 [10.2/5.8] and a molar ratio of (oxygen/phosphorous) O/P of 0.12 [0.7/5.8], both ratios falling within their respective claimed range. See Table 3, “Particle Surface” of 100 nm.
Takahashi et al. is silent in an X-ray diffraction pattern, the solid electrolyte exhibits:
peak A in a range of 2ꝋ = 21.6o to 22.6o;
peak B in a range of 2ꝋ = 22.7o to 23.7o; and
peak C in a range of 2ꝋ = 35.8o to 36.8o,
the X-ray diffraction pattern being obtained by an X-ray diffractometer using CuKα1 radiation; wherein the solid electrolyte exhibits peak M in a range of 2 ꝋ = 24.2o to 26.2o in an X-ray diffraction pattern obtained by an X-ray diffractometer using CuKα1 radiation, and a ratio of IA to IM, IA/IM, is more than 0 and less than 0.03, wherein IA represents an intensity of the peak A and IM represents an intensity of the peak M (claim 2); wherein the solid electrolyte exhibits peak M in a range of 2ꝋ = 24.2o to 26.2o in an X-ray diffraction pattern obtained by an X-ray diffractometer using CuKα1 radiation, and a ratio of IB to IM, IB/IM, is more than 0 and 0.025 or less, wherein IB represents an intensity of the peak B and IM represents an intensity of the peak M (claim 3); wherein the solid electrolyte exhibits peak M in a range of 2ꝋ = 24.2o to 26.2o in an X-ray diffraction pattern obtained by an X-ray diffractometer using CuKα1 radiation, and a ratio of IC to IM, lC/IM, is more than 0 and 0.012 or less, wherein IC represents an intensity of the peak C and IM represents an intensity of the peak M (claim 4); and wherein in an X-ray diffraction pattern, the solid electrolyte exhibits: peak D in a range of 2ꝋ = 32.00 to 35.30; and peak M in a range of 2ꝋ = 24.2o to 26.2o the X-ray diffraction pattern being obtained by an X-ray diffractometer using CuKα1 radiation, and a ratio of ID to IM, ID/IM, is less than 0.21, wherein ID represents an intensity of the peak D and IM represents an intensity of the peak M (claim 5).
However, as there is no clear compositional distinction between the solid electrolyte of Takahashi et al. comprises the Li, P, S, (Cl, Br), and O elements, as well as the molar ratios O/P and Cl/P and argyrodite crystal structure, and that of the claim, it would be inherent and/or expected for the solid electrolyte of Takahashi to exhibit X-ray diffraction pattern of peak A, peak B, and peak C obtained by an X-ray diffractometer using CuKα1 radiation, as well as peak W; wherein the solid electrolyte exhibits peak M in a range of 2ꝋ = 24.2o to 26.2o in an X-ray diffraction pattern obtained by an X-ray diffractometer using CuKα1 radiation, and a ratio of IB to IM, IB/IM, is more than 0 and 0.025 or less, wherein IB represents an intensity of the peak B and IM represents an intensity of the peak M; wherein the solid electrolyte exhibits peak M in a range of 2ꝋ = 24.2o to 26.2o in an X-ray diffraction pattern obtained by an X-ray diffractometer using CuKα1 radiation, and a ratio of IC to IM, lC/IM, is more than 0 and 0.012 or less, wherein Ic represents an intensity of the peak C and IM represents an intensity of the peak M; and wherein in an X-ray diffraction pattern, the solid electrolyte exhibits: peak D in a range of 2ꝋ = 32.00 to 35.30; and peak M in a range of 2ꝋ = 24.2o to 26.2o the X-ray diffraction pattern being obtained by an X-ray diffractometer using CuKα1 radiation, and a ratio of ID to IM, ID/IM, is less than 0.21, wherein ID represents an intensity of the peak D and IM represents an intensity of the peak M. MPEP 2112.01, I.
With regard to claim 6, Takahashi et al. teaches the solid electrolyte mixed with an active material. See [0044].
With regard to claim 7, Takahashi et al. teach an all-state lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a solid electrolyte layer of claim 1 interposed between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer. See [0070].
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 JONATHAN J JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1177. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:30 AM - 3 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
JONATHAN JOHNSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights