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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over CN 111092262 A, of which a complete copy of the Chinese document with a machine translation is provided with this Office Action.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 10, as well as claims 19 and 20, CN ‘262 discloses an active material and a method for its production (abstract; pages 2-6 of translation under the heading “summary of the invention”; and Examples 1-9), in which the active material and method of production include the following features/steps:
a first step of preparing a compound containing lithium (Li), sulfur (S), and an element M, and containing a crystalline phase having an argyrodite crystal structure, wherein M comprises phosphorus (P), and further comprises iron (Fe) in the form of lithium iron phosphate, as disclosed in the 6th paragraph on page 5 of the translation (in the paragraph beginning with “Preferably, step (a)”); and
a second step of mixing the compound and a conductive material to composite the compound with the conductive material (in particular, see the 2nd paragraph on page 5 of the translation, as well as the first eight paragraphs on page 5 of the translation),
wherein the active material and a sulfide solid electrolyte are used to form an electrode mixture for a battery that includes a positive electrode layer containing the active material, a negative electrode layer, and a solid electrolyte layer located between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer (see abstract; pages 2-6 of translation; and Examples 1-9).
Regarding the limitation “argyrodite crystal structure”, CN ‘262 discloses a “cubic argyrodite structure” in the 1st full paragraph on page 3 of the translation (under the heading “summary of the invention” on page 2 of the translation), such that a “cubic” structure would inherently and/or obviously be one of a selected group of crystal structures. Moreover, it is noted that the compound containing lithium (Li), sulfur (S), and an element M that includes both phosphorus (P) and iron (Fe) would also form an argyrodite crystal structure after the steps of mixing and heat-treating, as set forth on page 3 of the translation of CN ‘262, and as evidenced in at least the abstract and in paragraphs [0019]-[0029] of Seong et al. (US 2019/0198917), cited in the Information Disclosure Statement dated January 25, 2023. In this instance, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as inherent and/or obvious that the elements lithium (Li), sulfur (S), and an element M (phosphorus (P) and iron (Fe)), as disclosed in CN ‘262, would form an argyrodite crystal structure that is operable to improve electrochemical stability of sulfide-based solid electrolytes, as evidenced by paragraphs [0011] and [0012] of Seong et al. (US ‘917), in addition to providing high energy density and good cycle stability (see abstract of CN ‘262).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, CN ‘262 discloses that the compound further contains halogen (X) element, including at least iodine (I) – see the chemical formula in the 4th full paragraph on page 3 of the translation, as well as in Examples 1-9.
Regarding claims 8, 14, and 15, CN ‘262 discloses that the conductive material is a carbon material, including the conductive carbon material carbon black (see the 7th paragraph on page 5 of the translation (in the paragraph beginning with “Preferably, the step (a)”).
Regarding claim 11, CN ‘262 discloses that the second step of mixing includes applying mechanical energy to the compound and the conductive material to composite the compound with the conductive material by high energy ball milling, thus resulting in an inseparably dispersed mixture (see the 1st full paragraph below “summary of the invention” on page 2 of the translation).
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.
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.
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 2-5, 7, 12, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 111092262 A.
Regarding claim 2, CN ‘262 discloses/suggests the features of independent claim 1, including that the second step of mixing includes applying mechanical energy to the compound and the conductive material to composite the compound with the conductive material by high energy ball milling, thus resulting in an inseparably dispersed mixture (see the 1st full paragraph below “summary of the invention” on page 2 of the translation). Although CN ‘262 discloses using ball milling (throughout pages 3-6 and Examples 1-9 of the translation) rather than a planetary ball mill, as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that selection between a (traditional) ball mill and a planetary ball mill would have been obvious to try with a finite number of predictable solutions under a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, although CN ‘262 discloses/suggests the features of independent claims 1 and 10, CN ‘262 does not explicitly disclose that the second step of mixing is performed in such a manner that a half width of a peak at a position 2θ=29.62±1.0° is 0.4 or more in an X-ray diffraction pattern measured using CuKα1 rays, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as inherent and/or obvious that the elements disclosed in CN ‘262 would form an argyrodite crystal structure that is operable to improve electrochemical stability of sulfide-based solid electrolytes and includes an X-ray diffraction pattern having multiple peaks, including a peak at a position 2θ=30.5±1.0° that overlaps with the range of the peak in applicant’s claims 3 and 12, as evidenced by paragraphs [0011], [0012], and [0019] of Seong et al. (US ‘917), in addition to providing high output energy density, good cycle stability, and high capacity retention rate (see abstract of CN ‘262). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980). Moreover, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01(I).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, although CN ‘262 discloses/suggests the features of independent claims 1 and 10, CN ‘262 does not explicitly disclose that the second step of mixing includes mixing 1 to 50 parts by mass of the conductive material with 100 parts by mass of the compound. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the compound of CN ‘262 would include optimized ratios (in parts by mass) of the conductive material with respect to the compound, in order to provide high energy density and good cycle stability (see abstract of CN ‘262). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claim 5, although CN ‘262 discloses/suggests the features of independent claim 1, CN ‘262 does not explicitly disclose that the compound has a volume cumulative particle size D50 of from 0.1 µm to 20 µm at 50% cumulative volume as measured by laser diffraction scattering particle size distribution analysis. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the compound of CN ‘262 would include similar elements to form an argyrodite crystal structure that is operable to improve electrochemical stability of sulfide-based solid electrolytes and includes substantially overlapping volume cumulative particle size D50 of from the broad range of 0.1 µm to 20 µm at 50% cumulative volume, as measured by laser diffraction scattering particle size distribution analysis, in order to provide high energy density and good cycle stability (see abstract of CN ‘262). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claim 7, although CN ‘262 discloses/suggests the features of independent claim 1 (as well as the halogen (X) element of claim 6), including that the compound would be represented by a composition formula LiaMSbXc, wherein M represents phosphorus (P) and iron (Fe), and X represents at least iodine (I), CN ‘262 does not explicitly disclose wherein a is from 3 to 9, b is from 3.5 to 6, and c is from 0.1 to 3. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the composition formula of CN ‘262 would include optimized ratios of a, b, and c with respect to the composition formula, in order to provide high energy density and good cycle stability (see abstract of CN ‘262). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claim 17, although CN ‘262 discloses/suggests the features of independent claim 10, as well as disclosing/suggesting that a content of the lithium element in the compound would be within the range from 10% to 25% (see Examples 1-9 of CN ‘262), one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the range of the lithium element in the compound would also be subject to routine optimization with a reasonable expectation of success in order to obtain further improvement of high energy density and good cycle stability (see abstract of CN ‘262). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the applicant’s amendment provided with the request for continued examination received by the USPTO on June 26, 2026. Although the amendments to independent claims 1 and 10 overcome the prior 35 USC 103 rejection set forth in the final rejection mailed March 5, 2026, new 35 USC 102/103 and 35 USC 103 rejections are provided for all claims of record in view of the new reference to CN 111092262 A, including in the newly underlined portions in the above 35 USC 102/103 and 35 USC 103 rejections. Claims 1-8, 10-15, and 17-20 remain under consideration in the application.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8, 10-15, and 17-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 October 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights