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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-14, 16-23 are currently pending;
Claims 2-3, and 15 are canceled;
Claims 1, 5-9, 12, 14, and 16 are amended;
Claim 23 is new.
Status of Rejections and Objections Pending Since the Office Action of 09/24/2025
The objection of claim 6 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment;
The 112(b) rejection of claim 4 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment;
The 112(b) rejection of claim 5 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and replaced with a claim objection for a minor informality;
The 112(b) rejection of claim 7 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment;
The 112(b) rejection of claim 9 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment;
The 112(b) rejection of claim 12 is maintained in view of Applicant’s amendment for at least the reason that the claim still recites the broad recitation “the solvent is selected in the group consisting of alkanols” and the claim also recites the narrower limitation “notably having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, ethanol, propanol and butanol;” in lines 1-3;
The 103 rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12-14, and 16-19 are replaced with a 102(a)(2) rejection;
The 103 rejections of claims 5, 9, 11, and 20-22 are maintained;
The 103 rejection of claim 7 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and argument and is now objected to as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/26/2025, with respect to Jo not explicitly including an XRD peak at have been 27.1°+/- 0.5° has been fully considered and are persuasive, however, upon further consideration the examiner believes that given the same material, all of the claimed XRD peaks would be inherent to the material. The 103 rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn, but upon further consideration, has been replaced with a 102(a)(2) rejection under the same reference Jo.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/26/2025, with respect to Jo not teaching a heating temperature of 550° C to 900° C has been fully considered and are persuasive. However, the rejections of claim 8 and 9 do not necessitate a heating step as the heating step d is based on an optional step c, therefore the rejections are maintained. The 103 rejection of claim 7 is withdrawn, and claim 7 is now objected to as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Objections
Claim objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the solids material” in line 1 that should be corrected to “the solid material”;
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the solvent is selected in the group consisting of…” in liens 1-2 that should be corrected to “the solvent is selected from the group consisting of…” or similar.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the 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 12 recites the broad recitation “the solvent is selected in the group consisting of alkanols”, and the claim also recites “notably having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, ethanol, propanol and butanol;” 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 16 is dependent on claim 17, and by extension claim 1. Claim 16 includes the claim limitation “wherein the solid material is of formula (I) as follows:
Li4-2xZnxP2S6 (I)
wherein 0<x≤1” in lines 1-4. Claim 1, upon which claim 16 depends, is newly amended to already include the limitation “A solid material of general formula (I) as follows:
Li4-2xZnxP2S6 (I)
wherein 0<x≤1” in lines 1-3. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jo et al. (US-20220289569-A1), hereinafter Jo.
Regarding claim 1, Jo teaches a solid material of general formula (I) as follows:
Li4-2xZnxP2S6 (I)
wherein 0 <x≤ 1 ([0080]-[0081] sulfide-based solid electrolyte represented by chemical formula 2 of Li2+2kZn1-kP2S6 wherein k is 0 to 1; Table 1 prep. Examples 1-4 satisfy the equation).
Jo fails to explicitly teach the solid material exhibiting at least peaks at position of: 13.4°+/- 0.5°,16.9°+/- 0.5°, 27.1°+/- 0.5°, 32.1°+/- 0.5°, 32.6°+/- 0.5° when analyzed by x-ray diffraction using CuKα radiation at 25°C ([0086] XRD peaks at 12-14°, 16-18°, 25-26°, 30-33°, 39-41°, 50-53° using Cu-Kα rays; [0080]-[0081] sulfide-based solid electrolyte represented by chemical formula 2 of Li2+2kZn1-kP2S6 wherein k is 0 to 1; Table 1 prep. Examples 1-4 satisfy the equation). However, Jo does teach specific examples of solid materials of Li3Zn0.5P2S6 and Li3.5Zn0.25P2S6 ([0080]-[0081] sulfide-based solid electrolyte represented by chemical formula 2 of Li2+2kZn1-kP2S6 wherein k is 0 to 1; Table 1 prep examples 3 and 4 Li3Zn0.5P2S6 and Li3.5Zn0.25P2S6), which are claimed in dependent claim 6. The solid materials listed in dependent claim 6 have the claimed peaks given the claims dependency on claim 1. Given the same solid material of dependent claim 6, the material should inherently have the claimed peaks.
Regarding claim 4, Jo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Jo also teaches wherein x is chosen from 0.33 to 0.5 (based on the x in the equation shown in claim 3, [0080]-[0081] sulfide-based solid electrolyte represented by chemical formula 2 of Li2+2kZn1-kP2S6 wherein k is 0 to 1; Table 1 prep. Example 3 satisfies the equation with “x” being 0.5).
Regarding claim 6, Jo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Jo also teaches wherein the solid is selected from a group consisting of: Li3.8Zn0.1P2S6, Li3.6Zn0.2P2S6, Li3.5Zn0.25P2S6, Li3.33Zn0.33P2S6, Li3.2Zn0.4P2S6, Li3Zn0.5P2S6, and Li2.666Zn0.666P2S6 ([0080]-[0081] sulfide-based solid electrolyte represented by chemical formula 2 of Li2+2kZn1-kP2S6 wherein k is 0 to 1; Table 1 prep examples 3 and 4 Li3Zn0.5P2S6 and Li3.5Zn0.25P2S6).
Regarding claim 8, Jo teaches a process for the preparation of a solid material comprising Li, Zn, P and S elements ([0080]-[0081] sulfide-based solid electrolyte represented by chemical formula 2 of Li2+2kZn1-kP2S6 wherein k is 0 to 1).
Jo fails to explicitly teach the solid material exhibiting at least peaks at position of: 13.4°+/- 0.5°,16.9°+/- 0.5°, 27.1°+/- 0.5°, 32.1°+/- 0.5°, 32.6°+/- 0.5° when analyzed by x-ray diffraction using CuKα radiation at 25°C ([0086] XRD peaks at 12-14°, 16-18°, 25-26°, 30-33°, 39-41°, 50-53° using Cu-Kα rays; [0080]-[0081] sulfide-based solid electrolyte represented by chemical formula 2 of Li2+2kZn1-kP2S6 wherein k is 0 to 1; Table 1 prep. Examples 1-4 satisfy the equation). However, Jo does teach specific examples of solid materials of Li3Zn0.5P2S6 and Li3.5Zn0.25P2S6 ([0080]-[0081] sulfide-based solid electrolyte represented by chemical formula 2 of Li2+2kZn1-kP2S6 wherein k is 0 to 1; Table 1 prep examples 3 and 4 Li3Zn0.5P2S6 and Li3.5Zn0.25P2S6), which are claimed in claim 6. The solid materials listed in dependent claim 6 must have the claimed peaks given the claims dependency on claim 1 (which claims the identical peaks to claim 8). Given the same solid material of claim 6, the material should inherently have the claimed peaks.
Jo also teaches that said process comprising at least the process steps of:
a) obtaining a composition by admixing stoichiometric amounts of lithium sulfide, phosphorous sulfide, and a zinc compound ([0094] raw materials are mixed including lithium sulfide, zinc sulfide, and a phosphorous compound; [0096] the phosphorous compound can be a phosphorus sulfide; [0117]-[0118] mix lithium sulfide, zinc sulfide, and phosphorus), optionally in one or more solvents, under an inert atmosphere ([0106] step S1 may be carried out under inert gas atmosphere; [0118] preparation example 1 under an argon atmosphere);
b) applying a mechanical treatment to the composition obtained in step a) ([0098] mixed thorough mechanical milling and milled for 5-40 hours; [0118] preparation example 1 milled);
c) optionally removing at least a portion of the one or more solvents from the composition obtained on step b), so that to obtain a solid residue;
d) heating the obtained residue obtained in step c) at a temperature in the range of from 550°C to 900°C, under an inert atmosphere, thereby forming the solid material (step d is based on heating the obtained residue in step c; since step c is optional (“optionally”), step d is by extension also optional and not required); and
e) optionally treating the solid material obtained in step d) to the desired particle size distribution.
Regarding claim 10, Jo teaches all of the limitations of claim 8. Jo also teaches wherein the zinc compound is chosen in the group consisting of ZnS and Zn ([0094] zinc sulfide ZnS).
Regarding claim 12, Jo teaches all of the limitations of claim 8. Jo also teaches wherein the solvent is selected in the group consisting of alkanols, notably having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, ethanol, propanol and butanol; carbonates; acetates; ethers; organic nitriles; aliphatic hydrocarbons; and aromatic hydrocarbons (claim 8 does not necessitate the use of a solvent as claim 8 words it as “optionally in one or more solvents.” Since the embodiment of Jo that reads on claim 8 does not use a solvent, Jo does not need to define a solvent to be selected from the group consisting of the listed in claim 12).
Regarding claim 13, Jo teaches all of the limitations of claim 8. Jo also teaches wherein in step b) the mechanical treatment is performed by wet of dry milling ([0098] mixed thorough mechanical milling and milled for 5-40 hours).
Regarding claim 14, Jo teaches all of the limitations of claim 8. Jo does not teach wherein the heat treatment is carried out in step d) at a temperature in the range of from 550°C to 700°C. However, the heat treatment is not a requirement of claim 8, and therefore Jo does not need to read on the temperature of claim 14 is not required.
Regarding claim 16, Jo teaches all of the limitation of claim 17. Jo also teaches the solid electrolyte of claim 17, wherein the solid material is of formula (I) as follows:
Li4-2xZnxP2S6 (I)
wherein 0<x≤1 (Table 1; [0080]-[0081] sulfide-based solid electrolyte represented by chemical formula 2 of Li2+2kZn1-kP2S6 wherein k is 0 to 1).
Regarding claim 17, Jo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Jo also teaches a solid electrolyte comprising at least the solid material of claim 1 ([0046] all-solid-state battery including the sulfide-based solid electrolyte in at least one of the positive electrode, negative electrode, and the electrolyte layer; [0108]).
Regarding claim 18, Jo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Jo also teaches an electrochemical device comprising at least a solid electrolyte comprising at least the solid material of claim 1 ([0046] all-solid-state battery including the sulfide-based solid electrolyte in at least one of the positive electrode, negative electrode, and the electrolyte layer).
Regarding claim 19, Jo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Jo also teaches a solid state battery comprising at least a solid electrolyte comprising at least the solid material of claim 1 ([0046] all-solid-state battery including the sulfide-based solid electrolyte in at least one of the positive electrode, negative electrode, and the electrolyte layer).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 5, 9, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Jo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Jo also teaches wherein the solids material is in powder form with a distribution of particle diameters having a D50 comprised between 0.05 μm and 10 μm ([0035] the sulfide-based solid electrolyte defined by any of the first through sixth embodiments has an average particle diameter D50 of 1-20 μm). 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 9, Jo teaches a process for the preparation of a solid material according to general formula (I) as follows:
Li4-2xZnxP2S6 (I)
wherein 0<x≤1, ([0080]-[0081] sulfide-based solid electrolyte represented by chemical formula 2 of Li2+2kZn1-kP2S6 wherein k is 0 to 1; Table 1 prep. Examples 1-4 satisfy the equation); said process comprising at least the process steps of:
a) obtaining a composition by admixing stoichiometric amounts of lithium sulfide, phosphorous sulfide, and a zinc compound ([0094] raw materials are mixed including lithium sulfide, zinc sulfide, and a phosphorous compound; [0096] the phosphorous compound can be a phosphorus sulfide) in order to obtain Li4-2xZnxP2S7 (while not explicitly stated, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that given the same process with the same materials and product, that the same intermediary of Li4-2xZnxP2S7 would be produced), optionally in one or more solvents, under an inert atmosphere ([0106] step S1 may be carried out under inert gas atmosphere);
b) applying a mechanical treatment to the composition obtained in step a) ([0098] mixed thorough mechanical milling and milled for 5-40 hours);
c) optionally removing at least a portion of the one or more solvents from the composition obtained on step b), so that to obtain a solid residue;
d) heating the obtained residue obtained in step c) at a temperature in the range of from 550°C to 900°C, under an inert atmosphere, thereby forming the solid material (step d is based on heating the obtained residue in step c; since step c is optional (“optionally”), step d is by extension also optional and not required);and
e) optionally treating the solid material obtained in step d) to the desired particle size distribution.
Regarding claim 20, Jo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Jo fails to teach a vehicle comprising at least a solid state battery comprising at least a solid electrolyte comprising at least the solid material of claim 1.
Jo teaches that lithium secondary batteries are important in the use of vehicles ([0003]). It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that a solid state battery comprising at least a solid electrolyte comprising at least the solid material of claim 1 ([0046] all-solid-state battery including the sulfide-based solid electrolyte in at least one of the positive electrode, negative electrode, and the electrolyte layer) could be used in a vehicle.
Regarding claim 21, Jo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Jo also teaches an electrode comprising at least:
- a metal substrate ([0110] positive electrode includes a current collector and a positive electrode active material layer; [0115] the current collector is not limited with particular examples including copper, stainless steel, aluminum, nickel; it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that the positive electrode current collector would be a metal);
- directly adhered onto said metal substrate ([0110] the positive electrode active material layer is formed on at least one surface of the current collector), at least one layer made of a composition comprising:
(i) the solid material according to claim 1 ([0110] the positive electrode active material layer includes a solid electrolyte; this is followed by the preparation examples as shown in Table 1);
(ii) at least one electro-active compound (EAC) ([0110] the positive electrode active material layer includes a positive electrode active material);
(iii) optionally at least one lithium ion-conducting material (LiCM) other than the solid material of the invention;
(iv) optionally at least one electro-conductive material (ECM);
(v) optionally a lithium salt (LIS); and
(vi) optionally at least one polymeric binding material (P).
Regarding claim 22, Jo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Jo also teaches a separator ([0046]; [0108] the all-solid-state battery includes an electrolyte layer interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode; it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that the electrolyte layer would act as a separator) comprising at least:
- the solid material according to claim 1 ([0046]; [0108] at least one of the positive electrode, negative electrode, and the electrolyte layer includes the sulfide-based solid electrolyte; it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that the electrolyte layer would include the sulfide-based solid electrolyte; Table 1 prep. Examples 1-4 are detailed);
- optionally at least one polymeric binding material (P);
- optionally at least one metal salt, notably a lithium salt; and
- optionally at least one plasticizer.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Terai et al. (US-20220158230-A1), hereinafter Terai.
Regarding claim 11, Jo teaches all of the limitations of claim 8. Jo also teaches wherein lithium sulfide is Li2S and zinc compound is ZnS ([0094] the solid electrolyte prepared by mixing lithium sulfide (Li2S), zinc sulfide (ZnS)).
Jo fails to teach that phosphorous sulfide is P2S5 ([0094] phosphorus compound; [0096] the phosphorus sulfide may be used as the phosphorus element-containing compound, particularly P2S6).
Terai is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of solid sulfide electrolytes ([0001]). Terai teaches that phosphorous sulfide is P2S5 ([0078] the solid sulfide electrolyte can be produced by reacting a mixture of raw material and applying a mechanical stress; [0089] the raw material containing phosphorus includes phosphorus sulfide, wherein pentasulfide (P2S5) is preferable. However, a phosphorus compound such as P2S6 can be used without limitation).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jo and replace the P2S6 with P2S5 such as in Terai as they are interchangeable for use in producing a solid sulfide electrolyte (Terai [0089]). "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each
of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a
third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them
flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re
Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Jo.
Regarding claim 23, Jo teaches the solid material of claim 1, wherein the solid material is formed by admixing at least lithium sulfide, phosphorous sulfide and zinc compound ([0094] raw materials are mixed including lithium sulfide, zinc sulfide, and a phosphorous compound; [0096] the phosphorous compound can be a phosphorus sulfide), optionally in one or more solvents.
Jo fails to teach then proceeding with a heat treatment at a temperature in the range of from 550°C to 900°C,under an inert atmosphere, thereby forming the solid material. However, as the preamble of the claim is directed to a product, the claim is being interpreted as a product-by-process claim. As such, the claim is limited by the product, not the process steps. Jo teaches the product of the solid material of claim 1 ([0080]-[0081] sulfide-based solid electrolyte represented by chemical formula 2 of Li2+2kZn1-kP2S6 wherein k is 0 to 1; Table 1 prep. Examples 1-4 satisfy the equation; Table 1 prep examples 3 and 4 Li3Zn0.5P2S6 and Li3.5Zn0.25P2S6 are explicitly taught by dependent claim 6 to have the claimed peaks when analyzed by x-ray diffraction using CuKα radiation at 25°C), and therefore satisfies the limitations of claim 23. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). "[T]he lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith." In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, Jo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Jo also teaches a method of producing the solid material comprising at least bringing at least lithium sulfide, phosphorous sulfide and zinc compound ([0094] raw materials are mixed including lithium sulfide, zinc sulfide, and a phosphorous compound; [0096] the phosphorous compound can be a phosphorus sulfide), optionally in one or more solvents, then proceeding with a heat treatment under an inert atmosphere, thereby forming the solid material ([0102]-[0104] heat treatment step S2 carried out at 300 to 500°C; [0106] step S2 may be carried out under inert gas atmosphere). 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Jo, whether alone or in combination, fails to teach that the heat treatment is at a temperature of 550°C to 900°C (Jo [0102]-[0104] heat treatment step S2 carried out at 300 to 500°C). Further, the addition of a secondary source would not cure the deficiencies of Jo as Jo teaches away from a heating temperature above 500 °C (Jo [0104] when the temperature is higher than the above-defined range of 300°C to 500°C, ion conductivity may be decreased). Therefore, claim 7 contains allowable subject matter, but is objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP-2019071235-A teaches a sulfide-based solid electrolyte material that includes Li, P, S, and M, wherein M can be Fe, Co, or Zn ([0010]) and, in the manufacturing method of the sulfide-based solid electrolyte material, the heating step is in a range of 200°C to 500°C, but that the temperature, time, and other conditions during heating can be adjusted to optimize the properties of the sulfide-based solid electrolyte material ([0029];[0041]).
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 MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722