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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant amended claims 1 and 2 to include subject matter from canceled claim 5 to further claim “wherein the crystalline solid electrolyte is converted to a particulate solid electrolyte through pulverization at about 300 rpm to 500 rpm for about 10 minutes to 2 hours to reducing the degree of crystallinity.”
In the rejection, Hoshi teaches pulverizing the crystalline solid electrolyte, but Hoshi does not explicitly disclose pulverizing at about 300 rpm to 500 rpm for about 10 minutes to 2 hours. Harada is used to modify Hoshi because Harada discloses planetary ball milling at 300 rpm for 1 hour (see e.g., Harada; [0082]-[0083]), which falls within the claimed range.
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., the pulverizing treatment forming an anamorphous solid-electrolyte component and having crystallinity) 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). That is, applicant’s arguments 1 and 2 regarding the results of the intended invention are directed at features not claimed.
Applicant submits that “the pulverizing treatment in the present invention deliberately forms anamorphous solid-electrolyte component, whereas Hoshi’s pulverizing step is only for particle-size control and therefore has a different purpose.” However, the results and intention of forming an “amorphous solid-electrolyte component” in the instant invention is not commensurate with the scope of the claim of pulverizing at about 300 rpm to 500 rpm for about 10 minutes to 2 hours. Although Hoshi modified with Harada does serve a different purpose of achieving the desired particle size, the modification still results in a process that overlaps with the process as claimed. “The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant (MPEP 2144 IV.).”
Applicant submits that “Hoshi is premised on maximizing argyrodite crystallinity and therefore teaches away from the present invention, which intentionally reduces crystallinity,” and “Hoshi is premised on maximizing argyrodite crystallinity and therefore teaches away from the present invention, which intentionally reduces crystallinity.”
Hoshi discloses that pulverization is still necessary to achieve the desired particle size (see e.g., Hoshi; [0031]). Hoshi also discloses that in order to prevent an increase in lattice strain, it is desirable that the pulverization energy during pulverization should be small, the weight and/or the number of dispersing media may be reduced, or the circumferential velocity and/or the pulverization time may be reduced, and that the method for preventing an increase in the lattice strain is not limited to these methods (Hoshi; [0032]). Hoshi then discloses that ball mill methods may be used (see e.g., Hoshi; [0032]). Hoshi also discloses that the most preferred particle size after being pulverized is 1.0 μm to 7.0 μm (see e.g., Hoshi; [0026]).
Similarly, Harada discloses that planetary ball mills may be used (see e.g., Harada; [0082]-[0083]). Additionally, Harada discloses that a (singular) zirconia ball is used in the milling process (see e.g., Harada; [0082]-[0083]), which corresponds to Hoshi describing using a reduced number of dispersing media. Moreover, Harada discloses particle sizes of the pulverized solid electrolyte may be 5 μm (see e.g., Harada; [0076]), or 1 μm (see e.g., Harada; [0084]), which both fall within the desired particle size range described by Hoshi. Therefore, because the pulverization process disclosed by Harada can achieve the desired particle size of Hoshi with the similar processes of using ball mills having reduced dispersing media, the application of Harada to Hoshi may also prevent an increase in lattice strain as emphasized by Hoshi. Therefore, Harada combined with Hoshi does not teach away from the inventive concept of Hoshi.
While Hoshi does emphasize a crystal phase with an argyrodite-type crystal structure, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Instant amended claims 1 and 2 claims pulverization at 300 rpm to 500 rpm for 10 minutes to 2 hours with the intention of “reducing the degree of crystallinity.” However, the scope of the claims are limited to the process itself and not limited to the purpose of the process. In other words, the scope of the claim is limited to the process of pulverization at 300 rpm to 500 rpm for 10 minutes to 2 hours, which is taught by Hoshi combined with Harada. Moreover, “reducing the degree of crystallinity” may still be taught by Hoshi and Harada because both Hoshi and Harada disclose pulverization processes to reduce the particle size, which will consequently reduce the degree of crystallinity by at least some amount even with controlled processes that prevent too much lattice strain.
Applicant submits that there is no motivation to combined Hoshi with Harada’s rpm/time conditions. However, for the same reasons as described above, Hoshi may be combined with Harada to teach claims 1 and 2 without teaching away from the crystallinity structure of Hoshi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated combined Hoshi with the rpm/time conditions of Harada in order to produce a solid electrolyte powder (see e.g., Harada; [0082]-[0083]) and to achieve a desired particle size (see e.g., Hoshi; [0031]).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 objected to because of the following informalities: “reducing” should be “reduce”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshi (WO-2021085239-A1) (see US2022416292A1 for referencing), and in further view of Harada (US-20140193717-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hoshi discloses a method of preparing a sulfide solid electrolyte (see e.g., [0030], regarding solid electrolyte produced according to the method with a sulfur source compound), comprising: calcining a solid electrolyte precursor (see e.g., [0030], regarding calcining a mixture of starting materials to obtain a compound represented by Lia PSb Xc) to prepare a crystalline solid electrolyte; and treating the crystalline solid electrolyte to obtain a particulate solid electrolyte (see e.g., [0031], regarding pulverization of the calcined solid electrolyte).
Hoshi discloses the crystalline solid electrolyte is the compound Lia PSb Xc wherein 3 ≤ a ≤ 6 or more preferably 3.4 ≤ a ≤ 5.4, 3.5 ≤ b ≤ 4.8 or more preferably 4 ≤ b ≤ 4.4, X represents at least one elemental halogen, and 0.1 ≤ c ≤ 3 or more preferably 0.4 ≤ c ≤ 2b (see e.g., [0019]-[0021]). The claimed formula 1 falls within the genus disclosed by Hoshi. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the specific composition of formula 1, Li4+xPS4I1+x (-0.1<x<0.1), as the crystalline solid electrolyte because it falls within the genus disclosed by Hoshi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make select this composition in order to improve the lithium ion conductivity of the solid electrolyte (see e.g., [0013]).
Hoshi discloses that a wet or dry method of pulverization may be used (see e.g., [0032]). Hoshi does not explicitly disclose wherein the crystalline solid electrolyte is converted to a particulate solid electrolyte through pulverization at about 300 rpm to 500 rpm for about 10 minutes to 2 hours. “About” is interpreted according to the instant specifications as most broadly within 10% of the stated value. In this case, the corresponding ranges are 270 rpm to 550 rpm and 9 minutes to 2 hours and 12 minutes. However, Harada discloses a processing method of solid electrolyte wherein pulverization is performed at 300 rpm for 1 hour (see e.g., Harada; [0082], [0083]), which falls within the claimed range of about 300 rpm to 500 rpm for about 10 minutes to 2 hours. Harada is further equivalent analogous art because the processing method is for solid electrolytes wherein zirconia balls are used in a planetary ball mill which Hoshi discloses may be used. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method disclosed by modified Hoshi by providing a pulverization process with an rpm of 300 for 1 hour disclosed by Harada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to produce a solid electrolyte powder (see e.g., Harada; [0082]-[0083]) and to achieve a desired particle size (see e.g., Hoshi; [0031]).
Regarding claim 2, Hoshi discloses a method of preparing a sulfide solid electrolyte (see e.g., [0030], regarding solid electrolyte produced according to the method with a sulfur source compound), comprising: pulverizing a solid electrolyte precursor (see e.g., [0030], regarding a method in which a lithium source compound, a phosphorus source compound, a sulfur source compound, and a halogen source compound used as the starting materials are pulverized into a desired particle size); calcining the pulverized solid electrolyte precursor (see e.g., [0030], regarding the starting materials are calcined) to prepare a crystalline solid electrolyte; and pulverizing the crystalline solid electrolyte to obtain a particulate solid electrolyte (see e.g., [0031], regarding pulverizing the solid electrolyte). Hoshi discloses the crystalline solid electrolyte is the compound Lia PSB Xc wherein 3 ≤ a ≤ 6 or more preferably 3.4 ≤ a ≤ 5.4, 3.5 ≤ b ≤ 4.8 or more preferably 4 ≤ b ≤ 4.4, X represents at least one elemental halogen, and 0.1 ≤ c ≤ 3 or more preferably 0.4 ≤ c ≤ 2b (see e.g., [0019]-[0021]). The claimed formula 1 falls within the genus disclosed by Hoshi. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the specific composition of formula 1, Li4+xPS4I1+x (-0.1<x<0.1), as the crystalline solid electrolyte because it falls within the genus disclosed by Hoshi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select this composition in order to improve the lithium ion conductivity of the solid electrolyte (see e.g., [0013]).
Hoshi discloses that a wet or dry method of pulverization may be used (see e.g., Hoshi; [0032]). Hoshi does not explicitly disclose wherein the crystalline solid electrolyte is converted to a particulate solid electrolyte through pulverization at about 300 rpm to 500 rpm for about 10 minutes to 2 hours. “About” is interpreted according to the instant specifications as most broadly within 10% of the stated value. In this case, the corresponding ranges are 270 rpm to 550 rpm and 9 minutes to 2 hours and 12 minutes. However, Harada discloses a processing method of solid electrolyte wherein pulverization is performed at 300 rpm for 1 hour (see e.g., Harada; [0082], [0083]), which falls within the claimed range of about 300 rpm to 500 rpm for about 10 minutes to 2 hours. Harada is further equivalent analogous art because the processing method is for solid electrolytes wherein zirconia balls are used in a planetary ball mill which Hoshi discloses may be used. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method disclosed by modified Hoshi by providing a pulverization process with an rpm of 300 for 1 hour disclosed by Harada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to produce a solid electrolyte powder (see e.g., Harada; [0082]-[0083]) and to achieve a desired particle size (see e.g., Hoshi; [0031]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Hoshi teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the solid electrolyte precursor comprises a compound or elemental substance comprising lithium (Li), phosphorus (P), sulfur (S), and iodine (I) elements (see e.g., [0019]-[0021], regarding the compound Lia PSB Xc wherein X is a halogen such as I).
Regarding claim 4, modified Hoshi teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the pulverized solid electrolyte precursor is calcined at a temperature of about 350 °C to 550 °C (see e.g., [0030]) with examples at 450 °C and 490 °C (see e.g., [0045], table 1, regarding calcination temperatures) which overlaps with the claimed range of 200 °C to 500 °C.
Regarding claim 6, modified Hoshi teaches the method according to claim 1. Hoshi discloses the same process of producing the particulate solid electrolyte of the instant specification and instant claims as described above. Specifically, similar to the instant claims and instant specification preparation examples 1 to 4, Hoshi discloses the same precursor materials of Li2S, P2 S5, and a lithium halide (see e.g., [0030]), a pulverization process of the precursors (see e.g., [0030]), a calcination process after the initial pulverization (see e.g., [0030]), and another pulverization process of the calcined solid electrolyte (see e.g., [0031]), wherein the chemical formula discloses by Hoshi (see e.g., [0019]-[0021], regarding the compound Lia PSB Xc wherein 3 ≤ a ≤ 6 or more preferably 3.4 ≤ a ≤ 5.4, 3.5 ≤ b ≤ 4.8 or more preferably 4 ≤ b ≤ 4.4, X represents at least one elemental halogen, and 0.1 ≤ c ≤ 3 or more preferably 0.4 ≤ c ≤ 2) overlaps with the claimed formula 1. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the resulting particle would have the same inherent properties, such as: when measured by Raman spectroscopy, a position of a center of a maximum peak of the particulate solid electrolyte is shifted by about - 0.5 cm-1 or greater from a position of a center of a maximum peak of the crystalline solid electrolyte.
MPEP 2112 I. states ‘“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.’
Regarding claim 7, modified Hoshi teaches the method according to claim 2. Hoshi discloses the same process of producing the particulate solid electrolyte of the instant specification and instant claims as described above. Specifically, similar to the instant claims and instant specification preparation examples 1 to 4, Hoshi discloses the same precursor materials of Li2S, P2 S5, and a lithium halide (see e.g., [0030]), a pulverization process of the precursors (see e.g., [0030]), a calcination process after the initial pulverization (see e.g., [0030]), and another pulverization process of the calcined solid electrolyte (see e.g., [0031]), wherein the chemical formula discloses by Hoshi (see e.g., [0019]-[0021], regarding the compound Lia PSB Xc wherein 3 ≤ a ≤ 6 or more preferably 3.4 ≤ a ≤ 5.4, 3.5 ≤ b ≤ 4.8 or more preferably 4 ≤ b ≤ 4.4, X represents at least one elemental halogen, and 0.1 ≤ c ≤ 3 or more preferably 0.4 ≤ c ≤ 2) overlaps with the claimed formula 1. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the resulting particle would have the same inherent properties, such as: when measured by Raman spectroscopy, a position of a center of a maximum peak of the particulate solid electrolyte is shifted by about - 0.5 cm-1 or greater from a position of a center of a maximum peak of the crystalline solid electrolyte.
MPEP 2112 I. states ‘“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.’
Regarding claim 8, modified Hoshi teaches the method according to claim 1. Hoshi discloses the same process of producing the particulate solid electrolyte of the instant specification and instant claims as described above. Specifically, similar to the instant claims and instant specification preparation examples 1 to 4, Hoshi discloses the same precursor materials of Li2S, P2 S5, and a lithium halide (see e.g., [0030]), a pulverization process of the precursors (see e.g., [0030]), a calcination process after the initial pulverization (see e.g., [0030]), and another pulverization process of the calcined solid electrolyte (see e.g., [0031]), wherein the chemical formula discloses by Hoshi (see e.g., [0019]-[0021], regarding the compound Lia PSB Xc wherein 3 ≤ a ≤ 6 or more preferably 3.4 ≤ a ≤ 5.4, 3.5 ≤ b ≤ 4.8 or more preferably 4 ≤ b ≤ 4.4, X represents at least one elemental halogen, and 0.1 ≤ c ≤ 3 or more preferably 0.4 ≤ c ≤ 2) overlaps with the claimed formula 1. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the resulting particle would have the same inherent properties, such as: when measured by Raman spectroscopy, a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the maximum peak of the particulate solid electrolyte increases by about 20% or greater compared to a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the maximum peak of the crystalline solid electrolyte.
MPEP 2112 I. states ‘“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.’
Regarding claim 9, modified Hoshi teaches the method according to claim 1. Hoshi discloses the same process of producing the particulate solid electrolyte of the instant specification and instant claims as described above. Specifically, similar to the instant claims and instant specification preparation examples 1 to 4, Hoshi discloses the same precursor materials of Li2S, P2 S5, and a lithium halide (see e.g., [0030]), a pulverization process of the precursors (see e.g., [0030]), a calcination process after the initial pulverization (see e.g., [0030]), and another pulverization process of the calcined solid electrolyte (see e.g., [0031]), wherein the chemical formula discloses by Hoshi (see e.g., [0019]-[0021], regarding the compound Lia PSB Xc wherein 3 ≤ a ≤ 6 or more preferably 3.4 ≤ a ≤ 5.4, 3.5 ≤ b ≤ 4.8 or more preferably 4 ≤ b ≤ 4.4, X represents at least one elemental halogen, and 0.1 ≤ c ≤ 3 or more preferably 0.4 ≤ c ≤ 2) overlaps with the claimed formula 1. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the resulting particle would have the same inherent properties, such as: when measured by Raman spectroscopy, the particulate solid electrolyte has a maximum peak at 425.9 + 0.50 cm-1 and a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the maximum peak of 6.9 + 0.50 cm-1.
MPEP 2112 I. states ‘“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.’
Regarding claim 10, modified Hoshi teaches the method according to claim 1. Hoshi discloses the same process of producing the particulate solid electrolyte of the instant specification and instant claims as described above. Specifically, similar to the instant claims and instant specification preparation examples 1 to 4, Hoshi discloses the same precursor materials of Li2S, P2 S5, and a lithium halide (see e.g., [0030]), a pulverization process of the precursors (see e.g., [0030]), a calcination process after the initial pulverization (see e.g., [0030]), and another pulverization process of the calcined solid electrolyte (see e.g., [0031]), wherein the chemical formula discloses by Hoshi (see e.g., [0019]-[0021], regarding the compound Lia PSB Xc wherein 3 ≤ a ≤ 6 or more preferably 3.4 ≤ a ≤ 5.4, 3.5 ≤ b ≤ 4.8 or more preferably 4 ≤ b ≤ 4.4, X represents at least one elemental halogen, and 0.1 ≤ c ≤ 3 or more preferably 0.4 ≤ c ≤ 2) overlaps with the claimed formula 1. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the resulting particle would have the same inherent properties, such as: the particulate solid electrolyte has peaks at 20 = 14.90+ 0.500, 18.30+ 0.500, 21.10+ 0.500, 28.00+ 0.500, 32.00+ 0.500, 33.5 + 1.000, 36.80+ 1.000, and 38.60+ 1.000 when measuring an X-ray diffraction (XRD) pattern using CuKa rays.
MPEP 2112 I. states ‘“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.’
Regarding claim 11, modified Hoshi teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the particulate solid electrolyte has a lithium ion conductivity of 4.0 mS/cm or more (see e.g., [0018]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.0 mS/cm or greater.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KEVIN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728