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 .
Claim Status
This office action is in response to amendments/arguments filed 01/01/2026. Claim(s) 11 and 13-16 are currently amended, and claim(s) 21 are new. The amendments are supported by the specification and the original claims, and no new matter has been entered. Claim(s) 12 and 20 are canceled. Claim(s) 17-19 stand as originally or as previously presented. Claims 1-10 remain withdrawn. claim(s) 11, 13-19, and 21 are examined in this office action.
Claim Rejections
The 35 USC 102 rejections of claims are withdrawn because of the amendments to the claims. Applicant’s amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection as below set forth.
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama (JP 2020126760 A, a machine translation from espacenet included in the prior office action is used as an English equivalent).
Regarding claims 11 and 13-16, Nakayama discloses a sulfide solid electrolyte [0011] comprising a compound represented by a Formula 1 below (Nakayama discloses an electrolyte of the following formula: Li5.4PS4..4Br0.8Cl-0.8 (table 1, example 4 of original document), having an argyrodite crystal structure ([0027], [0029]) which matches the claimed formula, where a is 0, d is 1.6, and X is half Cl and half Br), wherein
the compound has a D50 of 0.9 µm to 5.0 µm (table 1, example 4 indicates a D50 of 1.38), a D10 of 0.1 µm to 0.8 µm (table 1 indicates a D10 of 0.52), and a D90 of 3 µm to 20 µm (table 1 indicates a D90 of 4.47), a relative span factor (R.S.F) of a particle size distribution is 10 or less (table 1 discloses that a (D90-D10)/D50 value (corresponding to R.S.F of claim 11 of the present application) is 2.86).
Nakayama does not explicitly disclose an embodiment wherein D90-D10 is 5 µm to 10 µm, however [0019] discloses ranges for D90 and D10, including a possible range of 0.5-50 µm for D90 and 0.1-1.9 µm for D10. D90-D10 depends on the selection of D90 and D10 values, and there are values that can be selected which fulfill the claimed limitations. Therefore, it can be said that the disclosed ranges overlap the claimed rangers. For example, selecting a D90 of 7 µm would result in a material having a D90-d10 of 5-10 µm, regardless of what D10 value was selected within the allowed range. Likewise, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could routinely select D10 and D50 values from amongst the overlapping portions of ranges (Nakayama’s preferred D10 range of 0.35-0.6 µm falls within the claimed of 0.1-0.8 µm, the preferred d50 range of 0.6-4.0 µm substantially overlaps the claimed range of 0.9-5 µm, and the preferred d90 range of 0.7-10 µm substantially overlaps the claimed range of 3-20 µm. Examiner notes that for the instant claim, only a range of 5.1-10.8 can actually be selected for d90 while still possibly satisfying the limitation that d90-10 is 5-10 µm, and that the disclosure of Nakayama does disclose a d90 that overlaps the entirety of (encompasses) this range).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely select particle sizes from amongst the overlapping portions of the disclosed rangers because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05(1)).
Nakayama does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitations of claims 11 and 13-16 regarding the peak intensity ratios and wavenumbers and peak locations. However, Nakayama does disclose a solid electrolyte matching the formula I identified as corresponding to the molecular formula for the sulfide solid electrolyte of the instant claims (see above). Examiner notes that the instant specification makes it clear that the formula alone is not sufficient to ensure the desired peak characteristics are met. For example, comparative examples 1 and 2 have peak ratios (LA/LB, LA/LC, LA/LD) outside the desired range of 8 or greater (table 4 of instant specification), but comparative examples 1 and 2 use sulfide solid electrolytes matching the claimed formula, except not using Triton X-100 in the preparation process (see [0197]-[0199] of instant specification). Applicant discloses in [0038] that an organic compound (which includes the Triton X-100, see [0041] of instant specification) is used in the preparation process, and that this has the effect of creating a narrow particle size distribution and relatively small particle sizes without particle agglomeration for the sulfide solid electrolyte.
As discussed above, comparative examples 1 and 2 do not exhibit the claimed peak characteristics, however at least comparative example 1 also does not exhibit the claimed particle size characteristics (see table 3. Table 3 does not provide particle size data for comparative example 2, but as can be seen from the data concerning comparative example 1, preparation without Triton X-100 caused the particle size characteristics to fall outside the same range. This is to be expected, given applicant’s disclosure that the Triton X-100 is used to control particle size). Examiner notes that despite not using Tiron X-100 in the preparation process, Nakayama discloses a solid electrolyte possessing particle size characteristics falling within the clamed ranges (see above).
This, coupled with the fact that the disclosed purpose of using the Triton X-100 is to control particle size, is evidence that the solid electrolyte material disclosed by Nakayama would exhibit the claimed peak characteristics, despite not being made with Triton X-100. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980), rejections under 35 USC 103 can be made. See MPEP §§ 2112 - 2112.02.
Regarding claim 17, Nakayama discloses an electrochemical cell ([0010] discloses an all-solid-state battery, reading on the claimed cell) comprising:
a cathode layer; an anode layer; and a solid electrolyte layer positioned between the cathode layer and the anode layer [0036], wherein
at least one selected from the cathode layer, the anode layer, and the solid electrolyte layer comprises the sulfide solid electrolyte of claim 11 [0035].
Regarding claim 18, Nakayama discloses the electrochemical cell of claim 17, wherein the cathode layer comprises a solid electrolyte compound represented by formula 1 below (see claim 11 rejection above, the formula 1 of the instant claim is the same as the formula 1 of claim 11) and having an argyrodite crystal structure ([0027], [0029]), wherein
the compound has a D50 of 0.9 µm to 5.0 µm (table 1, example 4 indicates a D50 of 1.38), a D10 of 0.1 µm to 0.8 µm (table 1 indicates a D10 of 0.52), and a D90 of 3 µm to 20 µm (table 1 indicates a D90 of 4.47), a relative span factor (R.S.F) of a particle size distribution is 10 or less (table 1 discloses that a (D90-D10)/D50 value (corresponding to R.S.F of claim 11 of the present application) is 2.86).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama (JP 2020126760 A, a machine translation from espacenet included in the prior office action is used as an English equivalent), in view of Yashiro (US 20190260065 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Nakayama discloses the electrochemical cell of claim 17, wherein the anode active material includes one or more selected from the group consisting of a carbon-based active material and a metal or metalloid anode active material [0039]. The subject matter of Nakayama is oriented more towards the electrolyte, and does not disclose specific details of electrode structure, such as the presence of a current collector. Nakayama additionally does not disclose that a second anode active material including lithium or a lithium alloy is used. However, these features are commonly known in the art and would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the battery of Nakayama.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama (JP 2020126760 A, a machine translation from espacenet included in the prior office action is used as an English equivalent), in view of Song (US 20210043963 A1). Regarding claim 21, Nakayama discloses the sulfide solid electrolyte of claim 11, but does not disclose Dmin or Dmax values. Nakayama does however disclose that the particle size of the solid electrolyte particles is as uniform as possible [0015] by sharpening particle size distribution, and that by doing this the generation of hydrogen sulfide from the electrolyte particles can effectively be suppressed. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, even though explicit Dmin and Dmax values are not provided, in order to achieve and not detract from the desired uniformity, a Dmin value should preferably be provided which is close to and not a great distance away from the provided D10 value, and a Dmax value should preferably be provided which is close to and not a great distance away from the provided D90 value. Further, it would have been obvious to turn toward electrolytes which were known in the art to determine reasonable and achievable Dmin and Dmax values for the electrolyte of Nakayama.
For example, Song discloses a similar sulfide solid electrolyte, composed from, for example, Li6PS5-Cl and Li6PS5-Br, both formulas which overlap with the instantly claimed electrolyte formula [0044]. Additionally, claim 9 of Song discloses that the solid electrolyte may have a particle size of, for example, 0.5-10 µm. As a result, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the known electrolyte composition of Song having a particle size ranging from 0.5-10 µm, and use this as a reasonable source for establishing upper and lower bounds on the electrolyte of Nakayama, for example implementing a Dmin of 0.5 µm and a Dmax of 10 µm. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to do this to establish a reasonable minimum and maximum electrolyte particle size using what was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in order to promote the goal of particle size uniformity disclosed by Nakayama.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s arguments on pg. 8 of remarks, applicant expresses that Nakayama fails to disclose an electrolyte having a difference between the D90 particle size and the D10 particle size, and that Nakayama fails to provide a teaching which would lead to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a D90 and D10 particle size to arrive at a compound having the claimed difference. Examiner agrees that Nakayama fails to disclose an example of an electrolyte having the claimed particle size difference, and as a result the 35 USC 102 rejection of the prior office action is withdrawn. However, as discussed in the above claim 11 rejection, Nakayama does still disclose ranges for the D10, D90, and D50 particle sizes which overlap with the claimed ranges and render the claimed limitations and D90-D10 relationship obvious (see above claim 11 rejection). Given that applicant has not established criticality for the claimed D90-10 relationship, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of the ranges disclosed by Nakayama.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that Nakayama does not disclose the claimed peak intensity ratio, examiner agrees that Nakayama does not provide an explicit teaching of such limitations, however, given the fact that Nakayama discloses every other claimed limitation of claim 11, as well as given the factors discussed above in said claim 11 rejection, the electrolyte of Nakayama would be expected to exhibit the claimed properties (see claim 11 rejection above). Applicant has not attempted to provide a technical argument as to why the electrolyte of Nakayama would not exhibit the claimed limitations regarding peak intensity ratios, and as a result has not overcome the expectation that it would.
For these reasons, applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 11 are not found persuasive. Applicant’s arguments for the rest of the claims are directed at supposed patentability by merit of being dependent upon rejected claim 11, and so similarly are not found persuasive.
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 ZACKARY R COCHENOUR whose telephone number is (703)756-1480. The examiner can normally be reached 1-9:00PM 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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/ZACKARY RICHARD COCHENOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights