DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3-5 and 9-11 are pending as amended on 23 July 2026, claims 6-8 are withdrawn from consideration.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and the remarks/arguments have been entered and fully considered.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the rejection of claims 1, 3-5 and 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Yoon. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment does not distinguish from US 2019/0088949A1 (Makino).
Applicant’s arguments in light of the amendment have been fully considered.
With respect to Makino, Applicant argues that Makino fails to teach the sulfide solid electrolyte comprises both bromine and iodine. The examiner disagrees. Although Makino exemplifies sulfide solid electrolyte comprises a single bromine or iodine element ([0062]), Makino discloses that the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolytes can be manufactured by a reaction of at least two raw materials of, for example, lithium sulfide (Li2S), phosphorus sulfide ( P2S5), or lithium halides ( LiI, LiBr, and LiCl) ([0060], emphasis added by the examiner), which renders it obvious the embodiment wherein both LiBr and LiI are included in the reaction .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation of 0 ≤y ≤ 30, 0 ≤ z ≤ 30 , and the claim also recites “wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte includes lodine as a first balogen element, wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte includes bromine as a second balogen agent”, thus y> 0 and z> 0, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3-5 and 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Makino.
Regarding claims 1, 3-5, 9 and 11, Makino teaches a negative electrode active material layer for all solid batteries comprises a negative electrode active material exemplified as lithium titanium oxide LTO (Table 3, N-2) ([0166], [0187] and [0323]), which meets the claimed lithium titanate; a sulfide solid electrolyte and a dispersion medium including tetrahydronaphthalene ([0123], [0216] and [0257]), which meets the claimed tetralin thus inherently the claimed δp and boiling point.
Makino teaches that the sulfide solid electrolyte can be manufactured by a reaction of at least two raw materials of, for example, lithium sulfide (Li2S), phosphorus sulfide ( P2S5), or lithium halides ( LiI, LiBr, and LiCl) ([0060]), which renders it obvious the embodiment wherein both LiBr and LiI are included in the reaction, thus a product of a formula yLil·zLiBr (100 - y - z)(xLi₂S (1 - x)P2S5, 0<y<100 and 0<z<100, which encompasses the claimed y and z, respectively, and a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 f. 2d 257,191 USPQ 90(CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. See MPEP 2144.05, In re Boesch, 617 F2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Hoeschele, 406 F2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Makino further teaches that Li₂S and P2S5 can be in molar ratio of 78:22, i.e., 0.78 Li₂S·0.22 P2S5 ([0061]), which meets the claimed (xLi₂S (1 - x)P2S5, wherein x is 0.78.
Makino teaches that the dispersion medium may be present in an amount of 1 ppm to 10,000 ppm after drying ([0214]-0216] ), which meets the residue liquid and encompasses the claimed amount of residue liquid.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found it obvious to include the tetralin at the instantly claimed range since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside range disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 f. 2d 257,191 USPQ 90(CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. See MPEP 2144.05, In re Boesch, 617 F2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Hoeschele, 406 F2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Regarding claim 10, Makino teaches an all solid battery comprises the negative electrode active material layer, a solid electrolyte layer and a positive electrode active material layer in this order (Fig. 1, [0043] and [0352]), which meets the claimed battery .
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 AIQUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-7736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am -4:00 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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-2721302. 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.
/AIQUN LI/Ph.D., Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights