DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s amendment filed 18 March 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 21 have been amended, claims 10, 14-16, 18 have been canceled, new claims 23-26 have been introduced, and claims 1-9, 11-13, 17, and 19-26 remain pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 18 March 2026 has been entered.
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) 1-4, 8, 9, 11-13, 17, and 19-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senga et al. (US 2018/0162730, hereinafter “Senga”; listed in the IDS filed 26 June 2024), in view of Sung et al. (US 10,868,330; hereinafter “Sung”), Goto et al. (WO 2012/046854 A1, hereinafter “Goto”; using the previously attached English machine translation for citations).
Regarding claim 1, Senga teaches a solid electrolyte producing method comprising:
obtaining a slurry including a polar solvent (see [0095]) and a solid electrolyte (see [0108]) or a precursor of the solid electrolyte, by mixing a raw material-containing material comprising at least an alkali metal (lithium, see [0088]-[0108]), sulfur atoms (see [0088]-[0108]), and phosphorus atoms (see [0088]-[0108]), with the polar solvent (see [0088]-[0108]); and
heating the powder to obtain a crystalline solid electrolyte (see [0111]-[0116]).
Senga teaches wet and dry grinding (see [0095]-[0107]), but is silent to drying the slurry by fluidized drying using media particles as a medium, thereby obtaining a powder of the solid electrolyte or the precursor of the solid electrolyte, and a content of the raw material-containing material being 5 g or more and 500 g or less per 1 L of the polar solvent.
Sung teaches a method of preparing a solid electrolyte (see abstract). Sung’s method includes three general steps: (1) preparing a mixed powder containing a simple substance sulfur powder, a simple substance phosphorus powder and simple substance lithium powder (S1), (2) milling and amorphizing the mixed powder (S2), and (3) heat-treating and crystallizing the amorphized mixed powder (S3) (see 5:7-13). Sung teaches that in the case of amorphizing the mixed powder through wet milling in step (2), a drying step before performing step (3) may be further performed. The dry step is to remove the remaining solvent in the milled mixed powder and may be vacuum drying, heat drying, or vacuum and heat drying under conditions of room temperature to 200° C. and 1 min to 10 hrs (see 6:49-55).
In view of Sung’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Senga to include drying the slurry to obtain a powder prior to heating, as taught by Sung, because it helps to remove the remaining solvent from the powder prior to crystallization.
The combination of Senga and Sung teaches it is known to perform drying to obtain a powder prior to heating (Sung: see 6:49-55), but is silent to wherein the drying includes drying the slurry by fluidized drying using media particles as a medium, thereby obtaining a powder of the solid electrolyte or the precursor of the solid electrolyte, and a content of the raw material-containing material being 5 g or more and 500 g or less per 1 L of the polar solvent.
Goto teaches drying a slurry by fluidized drying using media particles as a medium (see [0075]), thereby obtaining a powder (see [0070]-[0083]). This allows for the object to be dried with less unevenness (see [0070]).
In view of Goto’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of the combination of Senga and Sung to include drying a slurry by fluidized drying using media particles as a medium, thereby obtaining a powder, as taught by Goto, because it is a known method of drying a slurry to obtain a powder, and it allows for more even drying.
The combination of Senga, Sung, and Goto is silent to a content of the raw material-containing material being 5 g or more and 500 g or less per 1 L of the polar solvent. However, if the content of the raw material-containing material mixed per 1 L of the polar solvent is too low, it would be difficult to produce the solid electrolyte. On the other hand, if the content of the raw material-containing material mixed per 1 L of the polar solvent is too high, it may be hard to mix the materials well which would also result in it being difficult to produce the solid electrolyte. Therefore, there must be an optimal content of the raw material-containing material per 1 L of the polar solvent, and it would have been within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to discover through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Senga, Sung, and Goto teaches wherein the solid electrolyte or the precursor of the solid electrolyte contained in the slurry further comprises halogen atoms as constituent atoms (Senga: see [0108])
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Senga, Sung, and Goto teaches wherein the slurry includes the precursor of the solid electrolyte, which has a structure in which the alkali metal, the sulfur atoms and the phosphorus atoms are bonded together via the polar solvent (Senga: see [0088]-[0108]) and/or directly bonded together not via the polar solvent.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Senga, Sung, and Goto teaches wherein the polar solvent contains at least one type of atoms selected from the group consisting of nitrogen atoms, oxygen atoms and halogen atoms (Senga: see [0095]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Senga, Sung, and Goto is silent to wherein a content of the polar solvent in the slurry before drying is 5% by mass or more. However, if the content of the solvent in the slurry before drying was low, then the slurry would have a low flowability for mixing. On the other hand, if the content of the solvent in the slurry before drying as high, it would take an exorbitant amount of time to dry. Therefore, there must be an optimal content of the polar solvent in the slurry before drying, and it would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to discover the optimum amount through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Senga, Sung, and Goto teaches wherein the fluidized drying is performed using a medium fluidized bed dryer having a mechanism for fluidizing the media particles with a gas (Goto: see [0070]-[0083).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Senga, Sung, and Goto teaches wherein the gas is an inert gas (Goto: see [0062]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Senga, Sung, and Goto teaches wherein the gas has been heated (Goto: see [0087]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Senga, Sung, and Goto teaches wherein the drying is performed in a circulating manner (Goto: see [0070]-[0083]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Senga, Sung, and Goto teaches wherein a gas supply temperature is 90 to 150°C (Goto: see [0062]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Senga, Sung, and Goto teaches wherein the raw material- containing material contains two kinds of halogen atoms (Senga: see [0026]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Senga, Sung, and Goto teaches wherein the solid electrolyte has crystallization peaks at 2θ = 20.2° and 23.6° as measured by X-ray diffraction measurement using a CuKa ray (Senga: see [0118]).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Senga, Sung, and Goto teaches
wherein the heating is performed at a temperature of 130 to 300° C (Senga: see [0113]-[0116]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Senga, Sung, and Goto teaches wherein fluid at an outlet of the fluidized bed dryer has a temperature of 60 to 90°C (Goto: see [0085]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Senga, Sung, and Goto teaches wherein the drying is performed at a temperature of 60 to 80°C (Sung: see 6:49-55 – room temperature to 200° C; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I); Goto: at least 100°C, see [0062]; a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Senga, and Goto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chiga et al. (JP 2014-220051 A, hereinafter “Chiga”; using the attached English machine translation for citations).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Senga, Sung, and Goto is silent to wherein the polar solvent has an amino group.
Chiga teaches a process of manufacturing a solid electrolyte (see abstract). Chiga teaches the use of a polar solvent including an amino group (see [0023]). The inclusion of this solvent in Chiga’s method allows for the production of the solid electrolyte without requiring any specific mechanical device, and so the equipment costs and operating utility costs can be reduced (see [0011]).
In view of Chiga’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of the combination of Senga, Sung, and Goto to include wherein the polar solvent has an amino group, as taught by Chiga, because it allows a reduction in costs for production. Furthermore, the substitution of a known element (the solvent of the combination of Senga, Sung, and Goto) for another known element (the solvent of Chiga including an amino group) would have been obvious with predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Senga, Sung, and Goto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (CN 110600745 A, hereinafter “Huang”; using the attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Senga, Sung, and Goto is silent to wherein the polar solvent has two tertiary amino groups.
Huang teaches a known polar solvent is tetramethylethylenediamine (see [0015]).
In view of Huangs’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of the the combination of Senga, Sung, and Goto to utilize a known polar solvent such as tetramethylethylenediamine, as taught by Huang, because the substitution of a known element (the solvent of the combination of Senga, Sung, and Goto) for another known element (the tetramethylethylenediamine of Huang) would have been obvious with predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. It is noted that tetramethylethylenediamine is the same material as an example of a polar solvent that has two tertiary amino groups as discussed in [0039] of Applicant’s specification.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Senga, Sung, and Goto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kimbara et al. (JP 2017-188352 A, hereinafter “Kimbara”; listed in the IDS filed 9 November 2022; using the attached English machine translation for citations).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Senga, Sung, and Goto is silent to wherein the slurry further includes another solvent.
Kimbara teaches a method which makes it possible to produce a solid electrolyte of a small particle size in a shorter time than before (see abstract). Kimbara teaches that the initial slurry contains a solvent (see [0012]), and then during the grinding process, a second solvent is added (see [0032]). Kimbara teaches that this decreases the time required for processing (see [0034]).
In view of Kimbara’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of the combination of Senga, Sung, and Goto to include wherein the slurry further includes another solvent, as taught by Kimbara, because it can help to shorten processing time of producing a solid electrolyte.
Claim(s) 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung (US 10,868,330), and Goto (WO 2012/046854 A1; using the previously attached English machine translation for citations).
Regarding claim 24, Seng teaches a solid electrolyte producing method, comprising:
drying a slurry (see 6:1-55) including a solid electrolyte or a precursor of the solid electrolyte comprising at least an alkali metal (lithium powder, see 5:7-13), sulfur atoms (see 5:7-13), and phosphorus atoms (see 5:7-13) by drying (see 6:49-55), thereby obtaining a powder of the solid electrolyte or the precursor of the solid electrolyte (see 6:49-55); and
heating the powder to obtain a crystalline solid electrolyte (see 6:45-48).
Sung is silent to fluidized drying using media particles as a medium.
Goto teaches drying a slurry by fluidized drying using media particles as a medium (see [0075]), thereby obtaining a powder (see [0070]-[0083]). This allows for the object to be dried with less unevenness (see [0070]).
In view of Goto’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Sung to include fluidized drying using media particles as a medium, because it is a known method of drying a slurry to obtain a powder, and it allows for more even drying. Furthermore, the substitution of a known method of drying (vacuum and/or heat drying of Sung) for another known method (the fluidized drying using media particles of Goto) would have been obvious with predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Sung and Goto teaches wherein the slurry further includes a polar solvent (Sung: see 6:33-44).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Sung and Goto teaches wherein the drying is performed at a temperature of 60 to 80°C (Sung: see 6:49-55 – room temperature to 200° C; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I); Goto: at least 100°C, see [0062]; a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 6-9 of the remarks, Applicant argues, with respect to claim 1, that amended claim 1 requires that the heating is performed on the powder, not the slurry, and the heating is a step performed separately from the drying.
The Examiner finds this argument moot as the current rejection relies upon the combination of Senga, Sung, and Goto, which teaches separate drying and heating steps (see rejection for claim 1 above). Specifically, Senga, is being relied upon for the slurry and heating, but is silent to any drying step. In view of Sung’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Senga to include drying the slurry to obtain a powder prior to heating, as taught by Sung, because it helps to remove the remaining solvent from the powder prior to crystallization (Sung: see 6:49-55).
On page 9 of the remarks, Applicant argues, with respect to claim 1, that the Office’s reliance on Yanagi for the specific content of the raw material-containing material is improper because the method described in Yanagi is fundamentally different from the method described in Senga as modified by Goto.
The Examiner finds this argument moot as Yanagi is no longer being relied upon in the current rejections above.
On page 9 of the remarks, Applicant argues, with respect to claim 23, that Goto teaches a drying temperature which is at least 100°C, which is outside of the claimed range of 60 to 80°C.
The Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive as claim 23 is being rejected in view of the combination of Senga, Sung, and Goto. Sung teaches a drying temperature of from room temperature to 200° C (see 6:49-55). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I). Furthermore, though Applicant’s assessment that Goto teaches a drying temperature of at least 100°C (see [0062]), the Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458 . 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.
/S.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 15 May 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights