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
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted June 22nd, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently claims 1, 4-5, 7, 9-12 are amended and claims 15-16 are new, resulting in claims 1-16 pending for Examination.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed June 22nd, 2026 have been entered.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 7 has overcome the objection set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed February 23rd, 2026.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 11 has overcome the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection of this claim set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed February 23rd, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, the instant claim recites “the crystalline complex degradate having diffraction peaks at 2θ=20.1±0.5º, 23.9±0.5º, and 29.5±0.5º; or 2θ=20.2±0.5º and 23.6±0.5º when measured by X-ray diffractometry using a CuKα ray.” However, in the instant disclosure as filed, recites the X-ray diffraction peaks with respect to the crystalline complex degradate only once, in Example 1 of the instant disclosure, in which “the crystalline complex degradate (1) had crystallization peaks at 2θ=20.2º and 23.6º” (Paragraph 0173). However, these peaks (which were included in the amended limitation of the instant claim) in Example 1 are related to a specific composition of raw material inclusion which is more specific than a general recitation of a lithium atom, sulfur atom, phosphorous atom, and a complexing agent comprising an amine compound, as recited in the instant claim. Further, the instant disclosure provides that the peaks are at the locations of 20.2º and 23.6º, without the range of ± 5º. Therefore, the support on which applicant relies on to amended the claim to include peaks at 2θ=20.2±0.5º and 23.6±0.5º has a broader scope in the claims compared to what is recited in the specification.
Further, with respect to the peaks 2θ=20.1±0.5º, 23.9±0.5º, and 29.5±0.5º, the Examiner provides that the instant specification as filed recites that the Li4-XGei-XPxS4-based thio-LISICON Region II-type crystal structure gives diffraction peaks, for example, at around 2θ = 20.10º, 23.9º, and 29.5º and that a crystal structure similar to the Li4-XGei-XPxS4-based thio-LISICON Region II-typecrystal structure gives diffraction peaks, for example, at around 20.2 and 23.6, and that the position of these peaks may vary within the range of 0.5º (Paragraph 0154).
The Examiner acknowledges in the specification, specifically Examples 1 and 2, where the crystalline complex degradate was confirmed to have a thio-LISICON Region II-type crystal structure (Paragraph 0173 and 0175). The 2θ=20.1±0.5º, 23.9±0.5º, and 29.5±0.5º peaks were described in relation to a Li4-XGei-XPxS4-based thio-LISICON Region II-typecrystal structure. The 2θ=20.2±0.5º and 23.6±0.5º peaks were described in relation to a crystal structure similar to the Li4-XGei-XPxS4-based thio-LISICON Region II-type crystal structure However, these peaks (which were included in the amended limitation of the instant claim) in Examples 1 and 2 are related to a specific composition of raw material inclusion which is more specific than a general recitation of a lithium atom, sulfur atom, phosphorous atom, and a complexing agent comprising an amine compound, as recited in the instant claim. Therefore, the support on which applicant relies on to amended the claim to include peaks at 2θ=20.2±0.5º and 23.6±0.5º has a broader scope in the claims compared to what is recited in the specification.
While applicant argues in the Remarks filed June 22nd, 2026 that in light of the disclosure of the instant application, one skilled in the art would understand that the crystalline complex degradate and the final product of the crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte as described would have identical X-ray diffraction, the Examiner presents that the support for this assertion in the instant disclosure is lacking, in that the thio-LISICON Region II-type crystal structure is disclosed by the instant specification to be in a range of values (±5º), and therefore the intermediate crystalline complex degradate may have diffraction peaks within the acceptable range for a thio-LISICON Region II-type crystal structure but are different from the thio-LISICON Region II-type crystal structure of the resulting crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte.
Regarding claims 2-11, 13-16, they are rejected based on their dependence on a previously rejected claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Further regarding claim 11, the instant claim recites “the crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte contains a crystal structure having diffraction peaks at 2θ=20.1±0.5º, 23.9±0.5º, and 29.5±0.5º; or 2θ=20.2±0.5º and 23.6±0.5º when measured by X-ray diffractometry using a CuKα ray.”
The Examiner acknowledges in the specification, specifically Examples 1 and 2, where the crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte was confirmed to have a thio-LISICON Region II-type crystal structure (Paragraph 0174 and 0176). The 2θ=20.1±0.5º, 23.9±0.5º, and 29.5±0.5º peaks were described in relation to a Li4-XGei-XPxS4-based thio-LISICON Region II-typecrystal structure. The 2θ=20.2±0.5º and 23.6±0.5º peaks were described in relation to a crystal structure similar to the Li4-XGei-XPxS4-based thio-LISICON Region II-type crystal structure.
However, these peaks (which were included in the amended limitation of the instant claim) in Examples 1 and 2 are related to a specific composition of raw material inclusion which is more specific than a general recitation of a lithium atom, sulfur atom, phosphorous atom, and a complexing agent comprising an amine compound, as recited in the instant claim. Therefore, the support on which applicant relies on to amended the claim to include peaks at 2θ=20.2±0.5º and 23.6±0.5º has a broader scope in the claims compared to what is recited in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomoyuki (Japanese Patent Publication No. 2019200856 A) in view of Platt (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220123359 A1) and Nakayama (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220263122 A1), as evidenced by Ito (Japanese Patent Publication No. 2020027715 A).
Tomoyuki teaches a method of producing a crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte (Paragraphs 0001, 0013). Tomoyuki teaches the method comprising a first step of mixing at least Li2S, P2S5 and LiI (a lithium atom, a sulfur atom, a phosphorus atom) in a first solvent (complexing agent) to obtain a precursor (Paragraph 0023).
Tomoyuki teaches suitable examples of the first solvent including tetrahydrofuran and tetrahydropyran in order for the reaction between Li2S and P2S5 can be suitably advanced while preventing decomposition of the raw material (Paragraphs 0040-0041). As the instant disclosure provides that tetrahydrofuran and tetrahydropyran are suitable complexing agents to use in the method (Paragraph 0089), the first solvent of Tomoyuki is considered a complexing agent, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Tomoyuki teaches in the mixing step, stirring is performed in order to mix the raw materials and obtain a uniform reaction (Paragraph 0047). Tomoyuki teaches heating performed at the end of the production process in order to isolate the solvents used in the mixing process (Paragraph 0065).
Tomoyuki teaches the heating performed also to control the crystal structure of the obtained sulfide-based solid electrolyte. Therefore, it follows that the complex degradate obtained from the aforementioned heating process has a crystal structure, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Thus, Tomoyuki teaches the method of producing a crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte comprising:
mixing a raw material inclusion containing at least one selected from the group consisting of a lithium atom, a sulfur atom, and a phosphorus atom (Li2S and P2S5) and a complexing agent (first solvent of Tomoyuki) without using a grinding machine (stirring) to obtain an electrolyte precursor
heating the electrolyte precursor to obtain a crystalline complex degradate
meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Tomoyuki is silent as to the complexing agent comprising an amine compound.
However, Platt discloses a method of forming a sulfide solid electrolyte (Paragraph 0006) using a multi-stage solution process to form the solid electrolyte (Paragraph 0007). Platt teaches a first solvent used in combination with raw materials including phosphorous, lithium, and sulfur atoms (aligning with the instant claim 1) (Paragraph 0016), which may be suitably various compounds including cyclic ether molecules and ring amine molecules, such as tetrahydrofuran and n-methyl piperidine, respectively (Paragraph 0017).
Therefore, given the general teachings of Platt and Tomoyuki, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute n-methyl piperidine for tetrahydrofuran as the first complexing agent in the method of producing a sulfide solid electrolyte disclosed by Tomoyuki, because Platt teaches the solvent may suitably be selected as a cyclic ether or a ring amine in order to facilitate the reaction between the lithium, sulfur, and phosphorus-containing raw materials. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the sulfide solid electrolyte would be useful as an electrolyte in a solid-state battery. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
As the instant disclosure provides that methylpiperidine is a suitable first complexing agent to use in the method (Paragraph 0079), the first solvent of Tomoyuki in view of Platt comprising n-methyl piperidine is considered a complexing agent comprising an amine compound, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Tomoyuki is silent as to the crystalline complex degradate having diffraction peaks at 2θ=20.1±0.5º, 23.9±0.5º, and 29.5±0.5º; or 2θ=20.2±0.5º and 23.6±0.5º when measured by X-ray diffractometry using a CuKα ray.
However, it is reasonable to presume that the diffraction peaks of the crystalline complex degradate when measuring by X-ray diffractometry is inherent to Tomoyuki. Support for said presumption is found in that the conditions of heating the electrolyte precursor to obtain a crystalline complex degradate overlap with those of the instant disclosure. Therefore, the resulting crystalline complex degradate is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2112.
In the method described by the instant disclosure, in the step of obtaining the crystalline complex degradate by heating the electrolyte precursor it is taught that in general, a temperature of heating that is 135 ºC or lower, most preferably 125 ºC or lower and a lower bound of 90 ºC or higher, more preferably 110 ºC or higher (Paragraph 0119). The instant specification also describes how it is preferred for the heating to be performed in a reduced pressure atmosphere (Paragraph 0122). In the method described by Tomoyuki, the precursor is heated after mixing in order to control the crystal structure, with heating temperature set between 100 ºC and 180 ºC and the pressure being reduced (Paragraphs 0063-0064).
Therefore, given that Tomoyuki describes conditions of heating the electrolyte precursor which align and overlap with those of the instant disclosure, in addition to similar materials used in the method of producing a crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte as described above, the ordinary artisan can imagine that the diffraction peaks of the resulting crystalline complex degradate, when measured by X-ray diffractometry using a CuKα, would be the same as the instant claim. Or, in the alternative, given the teachings of Tomoyuki that the heating is used to control crystallinity, it would have been obvious to the artisan to tune the conditions of the heating of the precursor to obtain the resultant diffraction peaks, as is possible and suitable as taught by by Tomoyuki.
Tomoyuki is silent as to the method of producing a crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte comprising smoothing the crystalline complex degradate to obtain a smoothed complex degradate and heating the smoothed complex degradate.
However, Nakayama discloses a method of producing a sulfide solid electrolyte having a small particle size and a low specific surface area (Abstract) including a step (1-1) of providing an intermediate sulfide solid electrolyte that contains lithium, phosphorous, and sulfur elements and a step (1-2) of subjected the intermediate provided in step (1-1) to thermal treatment and pulverizing the thermally-treated product to obtain a pulverized product (Paragraph 0077).
Nakayama teaches the intermediate in step (1-1) obtained by providing a raw material powder which contains the raw materials needed for the composition of the intermediate (Paragraphs 0089-0090). Nakayama further teaches the mixture powder containing one or more lithium-containing compounds, phosphorous-containing compounds, sulfur-containing compounds, and halogen-containing compounds, which are mixed in order to obtain the intermediate (Paragraphs 0091-0093).
Thus, the complex degradate obtained by the mixing and heating of Tomoyuki above (comprising lithium, phosphorous, sulfur, and halogen) is equated with the intermediate that is thermally treated (sintered product) of Nakayama.
Thus, Nakayama teaches the complex degradate is smoothed (pulverization via milling, in accordance with the instant disclosure describing smoothing treatment, Paragraphs 0013 and 00142) (step 1-2 of Nakayama) (Paragraphs 0077 and 0100). In examples where the pulverization is performed with wet milling, the obtained pulverized product of Nakayama was subjected to drying in order to obtained the final product, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Nakayama discloses the pulverization and heating steps of the intermediate in the process of forming the sulfide solid electrolyte in order to control the particle shape and size of the resulting sulfide solid electrolyte product (Paragraph 0079).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of producing a crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte of Tomoyuki to incorporate the teachings of Nakayama in which the complex degradate is smoothed to obtain a smoothed complex degradate and then heated. Doing so would advantageously result in the desired spherical shape of the resulting sulfide solid electrolyte with suitable diameter and surface area characteristics, as recognized by Nakayama. Thus modification is further supported by Ito, who recognizes that in the method of producing a sulfide solid electrolyte, it is possible to add additional treatment steps such as crushing (smoothing) between the mixing and firing step as well as after the firing step (Paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 2, modified Tomoyuki teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the raw material inclusion further contains a halogen atom. As discussed above, Tomoyuki teaches lithium iodide in the mixing step of the method (Paragraph 0009), therefore a halogen atom is comprised in the raw material inclusion of the above method, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 3, modified Tomoyuki teaches the method according to claim 1.
In the method of producing a sulfide solid electrolyte disclosed by Tomoyuki, the mixing step is a two-stage step using a specific solvent in each stage to synthesize halogenated sulfide-based solid electrolytes in a liquid phase in order to advantageously obtain a characteristic crystal structure, a relatively low activation energy, and a relatively high ionic conductivity.
However, Tomoyuki teaches a first step (first mixing) of mixing at least Li2S, P2S5 and LiI (a lithium atom, a sulfur atom, a phosphorus atom, and a halogen, as required by claims 1-2) in a first solvent (first complexing agent) to obtain a precursor, and a second step (second mixing) of reacting the precursor in a second solvent (second complexing agent) to obtain a sulfide-based solid electrolyte (Paragraph 0023).
Tomoyuki teaches the first solvent is a cyclic ether compound substituted or unsubstituted by an alkyl group having 1 to 3 carbon atoms or an alkoxy group having 1 to 3 carbon atoms and provides suitable examples of the first solvent including tetrahydrofuran and tetrahydropyran in order for the reaction between Li2S and P2S5 can be suitably advanced while preventing decomposition of the raw material (Paragraphs 0040-0041). As the instant disclosure provides that tetrahydrofuran and tetrahydrofuran are suitable complexing agents to use in the method (Paragraph 0089), the first solvent is considered a first complexing agent, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Tomoyuki teaches the second solvent is an alkoxy group-substituted hydrocarbon (Paragraph 0050) to further promote the reaction to form a sulfide solid electrolyte (Paragraph 0050) and provides suitable examples of the second solvent including dimethoxyethane, diethoxyethane, diisopropyl ether and cyclopentylmethyl ether (Paragraph 0056). As the instant disclosure provides that dimethoxyethane, diethoxyethane, diisopropyl ether and cyclopentylmethyl ether are suitable complexing agents to use in the method (Paragraph 0089), the second solvent is considered a second complexing agent, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Therefore, Tomoyuki teaches the mixing step comprises a first mixing using a first complexing agent and a second mixing using a second complexing agent that differs from the first complexing agent, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 4, modified Tomoyuki teaches a method according to claim 3.
As discussed above, Tomoyuki teaches lithium iodide in the mixing step of the method (Paragraph 0009), therefore a halogen atom is comprised in the raw material inclusion of the above method, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Tomoyuki is silent as to the second complexing agent is a complexing agent capable of forming a complex that contains Li3PS4.
However, as discussed above, Tomoyuki teaches a first step (first mixing) of mixing at least Li2S, P2S5 and LiI in a first solvent (first complexing agent) to obtain a precursor, and a second step (second mixing) of reacting the precursor in a second solvent (second complexing agent) to obtain a sulfide-based solid electrolyte (Paragraph 0023).
Further discussed above, Tomoyuki teaches tetrahydrofuran and tetrahydropyran as suitable first solvents (Paragraph 0040-0041) and dimethoxyethane, diethoxyethane, diisopropyl ether and cyclopentylmethyl ether as suitable second solvents (Paragraph 0056).
As the instant disclosure provides that dimethoxyethane, diethoxyethane, diisopropyl ether and cyclopentylmethyl ether are suitable second complexing agents to use in the method (Paragraph 0089), the second solvent is considered a second complexing agent. It is reasonable to presume that the second complexing agent of Tomoyuki is a complexing agent capable of forming a complex that contains Li3PS4, meeting the instant claimed limitations. Support for said presumption is found in the shared identity of the second solvent of Tomoyuki and the second complexing agent of the instant disclosure.
Tomoyuki does not teach the first complexing agent is a complexing agent capable of forming a complex that contains Li3PS4 and the halogen atom.
However, as described above, Platt discloses a method of forming a sulfide solid electrolyte (Paragraph 0006) using a multi-stage solution process to form the solid electrolyte (Paragraph 0007). Platt teaches a first solvent used in combination with raw materials including phosphorous, lithium, and sulfur atoms (aligning with the instant claim 1) (Paragraph 0016), which may be suitably various compounds including cyclic ether molecules and ring amine molecules, such as tetrahydrofuran and n-methyl piperidine, respectively (Paragraph 0017).
Therefore, given the general teachings of Platt and Tomoyuki, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute n-methyl piperidine for tetrahydrofuran as the first complexing agent in the method of producing a sulfide solid electrolyte disclosed by Tomoyuki, because Platt teaches the solvent may suitably be selected as a cyclic ether or a ring amine in order to facilitate the reaction between the lithium, sulfur, and phosphorus-containing raw materials. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the sulfide solid electrolyte would be useful as an electrolyte in a solid-state battery. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
As the instant disclosure provides that methylpiperidine is a suitable first complexing agent to use in the method (Paragraph 0079), the first solvent of n-methyl piperidine of Tomoyuki in view of Platt is considered a first complexing agent, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
It is reasonable to presume that the first complexing agent of Tomoyuki in view of Platt is a complexing agent capable of forming a complex that contains Li3PS4 and a halogen atom, meeting the instant claimed limitations. Support for said presumption is found in the shared identity of the first solvent of Tomoyuki in view of Platt and the first complexing agent of the instant disclosure.
Regarding claim 5, Tomoyuki in view of Nakayama teaches a method according to claim 1.
As discussed above, Nakayama taught the steps of the instant method direct toward smoothing the complex degradate and heating the smoothed complex degradate.
Nakayama teaches the smoothing (pulverization) treatment is carried out using a grinding machine (jet mill, ball mill, bead mill) (Paragraph 0100).
Therefore, Tomoyuki in view of Nakayama teaches the smoothing treatment is carried out using a grinding machine (mill), meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 6, Tomoyuki in view of Nakayama teaches a method according to claim 1.
As discussed above, Nakayama taught the steps of the instant method direct toward smoothing the complex degradate and heating the smoothed complex degradate.
Nakayama teaches the smoothing (pulverization) treatment can be pulverized by a wet method with a hydrocarbon solvent (Paragraph 0100), meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 7, Tomoyuki in view of Nakayama teaches a method according to claim 1.
As discussed above, Nakayama taught the steps of the instant method direct toward smoothing the complex degradate and heating the smoothed complex degradate.
Nakayama teaches the smoothing (pulverization) treatment is carried out using a grinding machine including a ball mill and bead mill (Paragraph 0100), meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 8, Tomoyuki in view of Nakayama teaches a method according to claim 6.
As discussed above, Nakayama taught the steps of the instant method direct toward smoothing the complex degradate and heating the smoothed complex degradate.
Nakayama teaches the wet pulverization performed using a hydrocarbon solvent, which is known in the art to be non-polar and aprotic, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 9, Tomoyuki teaches a method according to claim 1.
Tomoyuki is silent as to a ratio of Sb/Sa is 1.0 or more and 10.0 or less, where Sb is a specific surface area of the crystalline complex degradate before the smoothing and Sa is a specific surface area of the smoothed complex degradate.
However, in the method of producing a sulfide solid electrolyte of Nakayama described above, Nakayama teaches that the thermally-treated intermediate is preferably pulverized so that the ratio of the surface area of the intermediate (before pulverization) (Sb) to the surface area of the product (after pulverization) (Sa) is 1 or more (Paragraph 0107). The range of Sb/Sa of Nakayama overlaps with the range of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Nakayama teaches that an increase in the specific surface area of the sulfide solid electrolyte results in an increase in the solvent adsorbed on the particle surface, requiring more drying which increases production costs and decreases productivity. Accordingly, there is a need to reduce bot the particle size and specific surface area of the sulfide solid electrolyte (Paragraphs 0059, 0063-0064).
Therefore, in the modification of Tomoyuki by Nakayama to incorporate the smoothing of the crystalline complex degradate and the heating of the smoothed complex degradate disclosed Nakayama, it would be further obvious to the ordinary artisan that the inclusion of these steps of Nakayama would result in the ratio of the surface area of the intermediate (before pulverization) (Sb) to the surface area of the product (after pulverization) (Sa) that is disclosed by Nakayama to result from the smoothing/pulverization treatment.
Thus, Tomoyuki in view of Nakayama teaches a ratio of Sb/Sa is 1.0 or more, where Sb is a specific surface area of the crystalline complex degradate before the smoothing and Sa is a specific surface area of the smoothed complex degradate, in order to prevent excessive solvent adsorption onto the particle surface, as recognized by Nakayama.
Regarding claim 10, Tomoyuki teaches a method according to claim 1.
Tomoyuki is silent as to wherein a ratio of D50b/D50a is 1.0 or more and 100.0 or less, where D50b is an average particle diameter of the crystalline complex degradate before the smoothing and D50a is an average particle diameter of the smoothed complex degradate.
However, in the method of producing a sulfide solid electrolyte of Nakayama described above, Nakayama teaches that the thermally-treated intermediate is preferably pulverized so that the ratio of the diameter (D50) of the intermediate (before pulverization) (D50b) to the surface area of the product (after pulverization) (D50a) is 0.10 or more and 10 or less (Paragraph 0081). The range of D50b/ D50a of Nakayama overlaps with the range of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Nakayama teaches that when the ratio of the diameters before and after pulverization lie within the range disclosed, the pulverized sulfide solid electrolyte product has a spherical shape and the generation of fine particles is suppressed (Paragraph 0082). Accordingly, there is a need to reduce bot the particle size and specific surface area of the sulfide solid electrolyte (Paragraphs 0059, 0063-0064).
Therefore, in the modification of Tomoyuki by Nakayama to incorporate the smoothing of the crystalline complex degradate and the heating of the smoothed complex degradate disclosed Nakayama, it would be further obvious to the ordinary artisan that the inclusion of these steps of Nakayama would result in the ratio of the diameter of the intermediate (before pulverization) (D50b) to the diameter of the product (after pulverization) (D50a) that is disclosed by Nakayama to result from the smoothing/pulverization treatment.
Thus, Tomoyuki in view of Nakayama teaches a ratio of D50b/ D50a is 0.10 or more and 10.0 or less, where D50b is a specific surface area of the crystalline complex degradate before the smoothing and D50a is a specific surface area of the smoothed complex degradate, in order to obtain a spherical sulfide solid electrolyte and prevent the formation of fine particles as a result of pulverization, as recognized by Nakayama.
Regarding claim 11, Tomoyuki teaches the method according to claim 1.
Tomoyuki is silent as to the crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte contains a crystal structure having diffraction peaks at 2θ=20.1±0.5º, 23.9±0.5º, and 29.5±0.5º; or 2θ=20.2±0.5º and 23.6±0.5º when measured by X-ray diffractometry using a CuKα ray.
However, as described above in the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner established that it was reasonable to presume that the crystalline complex degradate of Tomoyuki would have diffraction peaks at 2θ=20.1±0.5º, 23.9±0.5º, and 29.5±0.5º; or 2θ=20.2±0.5º and 23.6±0.5º when measured by X-ray diffractometry using a CuKα ray.
Tomoyuki, discussed above, teaches in the method of forming the sulfide solid electrolyte that the ratio of lithium sulfide (Li2S) is not limited and may be changed as appropriate so that a desired compound is obtained (Paragraphs 0035-0036). Nakayama, as discussed above modified Tomoyuki to teach the final steps of the method, teaches the smoothing performed with a force to maintain crystallinity (Paragraph 0093) and thermal treatment performed to alleviate the strain of the solid electrolyte particles which is performed between 200ºC and 500ºC (Paragraph 0103).
The instant disclosure teaches that to obtain a crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte, the heating temperature is preferably 120 ºC or higher and 300 ºC or lower. Thus, the thermal treatment of Tomoyuki in view of Nakayama is performed at a temperature which overlaps with that of the instant specification.
While Tomoyuki in view of Nakayama does not expressly teach the crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte contains a crystal structure having diffraction peaks at 2θ=20.1±0.5º, 23.9±0.5º, and 29.5±0.5º; or 2θ=20.2±0.5º and 23.6±0.5º when measured by X-ray diffractometry using a CuKα ray, it is reasonable to presume that the aforementioned diffraction peaks when measured in the manner discloses is inherent to Tomoyuki in view of Nakayama. Support for said presumption is found in that Tomoyuki in view of Nakayama teaches a method of producing a crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte wherein the method steps, conditions, and materials used align/overlap with those of the instant disclosure, including;
the composition of a complexing agent (first and second complexing agent)
conditions (temperature and pressure) of heating the electrolyte precursor
apparatus used to perform the smoothing treatment
composition of solvent used in the smoothing step
conditions of heating the smoothed complex degradate
Therefore, the crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte of Tomoyuki in view of Nakayama is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention, owing to the similar steps, materials, and conditions of the method used to produce the crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte. See MPEP 2122.
Regarding claim 12, Tomoyuki in view of Nakayama and Platt teaches a method of producing a crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte (discussed above in the rejection of claim 1), the method comprising:
mixing a raw material inclusion containing at least one selected from the group consisting of a lithium atom, a sulfur atom and a phosphorus atom and a complexing agent comprising an amine compound, without using a grinding machine (stirring) to obtain an electrolyte precursor,
heating the electrolyte precursor to obtain a crystalline complex degradate having diffraction peaks at 2θ=20.1±0.5º, 23.9±0.5º, and 29.5±0.5º; or 2θ=20.2±0.5º and 23.6±0.5º when measured by X-ray diffractometry using a CuKα ray.
mechanically processing (milling, in accordance with the instant disclosure describing mechanical treatment, Paragraphs 0013 and 00142) the crystalline complex degradate to obtain a smoothed complex degradate (step 102 of Nakayama), and
heating the modified complex degradate, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 13, Tomoyuki teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the electrolyte precursor is obtained by mixing the raw material inclusion using a stirrer (Paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 14, Tomoyuki teaches a method according to claim 12, wherein the electrolyte precursor is obtained by mixing the raw material inclusion using a stirrer (Paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 15, Tomoyuki teaches a method according to claim 1.
As described above, in the method of producing a sulfide solid electrolyte disclosed by Tomoyuki, the mixing step is a two-stage step using a specific solvent in each stage to synthesize halogenated sulfide-based solid electrolytes in a liquid phase in order to advantageously obtain a characteristic crystal structure, a relatively low activation energy, and a relatively high ionic conductivity (Paragraph 0030).
Tomoyuki teaches a first solvent, as described above in the rejection of claim 1, which was considered to meet the claimed limitations of a complexing agent. However, Tomoyuki further teaches a second solvent may be suitably dimethoxyethane, diethoxyethane, diisopropyl ether and cyclopentylmethyl ether (Paragraph 0056). As the instant disclosure provides that dimethoxyethane, diethoxyethane, diisopropyl ether and cyclopentylmethyl ether are suitable complexing agents to use in the method (Paragraph 0089), the second solvent of Tomoyuki is also considered to be part of the complexing agent composition.
As the second solvent of Tomoyuki includes ether compounds (dimethoxyethane, diethoxyethane, diisopropyl ether and cyclopentylmethyl ether, as described above), the complexing agent of Tomoyuki is considered to further comprise an ether compound, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 16, Tomoyuki teaches a method according to claim 9.
Tomoyuki is silent as to the ratio of Sb/Sa is 2.0 or more and 8.0 or less.
However, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 9, in the method of producing a sulfide solid electrolyte of Nakayama described above, Nakayama teaches that the thermally-treated intermediate is preferably pulverized so that the ratio of the surface area of the intermediate (before pulverization) (Sb) to the surface area of the product (after pulverization) (Sa) is 1 or more (Paragraph 0107). The range of Sb/Sa of Nakayama overlaps with the range of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Nakayama teaches that an increase in the specific surface area of the sulfide solid electrolyte results in an increase in the solvent adsorbed on the particle surface, requiring more drying which increases production costs and decreases productivity. Accordingly, there is a need to reduce bot the particle size and specific surface area of the sulfide solid electrolyte (Paragraphs 0059, 0063-0064).
Therefore, in the modification of Tomoyuki by Nakayama to incorporate the smoothing of the crystalline complex degradate and the heating of the smoothed complex degradate disclosed Nakayama, it would be further obvious to the ordinary artisan that the inclusion of these steps of Nakayama would result in the ratio of the surface area of the intermediate (before pulverization) (Sb) to the surface area of the product (after pulverization) (Sa) that is disclosed by Nakayama to result from the smoothing/pulverization treatment.
Thus, Tomoyuki in view of Nakayama teaches a ratio of Sb/Sa is 1.0 or more, where Sb is a specific surface area of the crystalline complex degradate before the smoothing and Sa is a specific surface area of the smoothed complex degradate, in order to prevent excessive solvent adsorption onto the particle surface, as recognized by Nakayama.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the disclosure of Takeshi not teaching the limitation of the instantly claimed method involving the use of a complexing agent comprising an amine compound and prepared a crystalline complex degradate having the characteristics X-ray diffraction peaks have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Takeshi applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In the remarks filed June 22nd, 2026, applicant argues that Tomoyuki does not teach or suggest a component that would correspond to the instantly claimed complexing agent that contains an amine compound.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that a proper obviousness rejection of the amended claim limitation was set forth in the rejection of claim 1 in view of Tomoyuki, Platt, and Nakayama, as evidenced by Ito.
In the remarks filed June 22nd, 2026, applicant argues that the first reactants of Platt contains no halogen atoms, and are thus different from the first reactants of Tomoyuki. Thus, applicant argues that because the reactants are different, it cannot be assumed that the solvents suitable for Platt’s first reactants would also be suitable for Tomoyuki’s first reactants, rendering the Office’s substitution allegation improper.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that as set forth above and in the Non-Final Rejection mailed February 23rd, 2026, Platt discloses a method directed toward forming a sulfide solid electrolyte, which is the final product of the methods disclosed by both the claimed invention and Tomoyuki. Therefore, Platt is considered pertinent art used to modify the primary reference of Tomoyuki. As previously described, the Examiner pointed out the similarities between Platt and Tomoyuki (and the instant application) in the process of manufacturing a sulfide solid electrolyte, including the use of a solvent in combination with phosphorous, lithium, and sulfur-containing raw materials. Of the possible solvents disclosed by Platt, tetrahydrofuran was included in addition to n-methyl piperidine.
Therefore, Platt is a disclosure exemplifying that it is known in the art to include solvents such as tetrahydrofuran and n-methyl piperidine in the process of forming a sulfide solid electrolyte, and that these solvents are added to raw materials comprising phosphorous, lithium, and sulfur atoms. Further, in the Example 1 of Platt, Platt teaches how a mixture comprising tetrahydrofuran was combined with a mixture comprising LiCl (Paragraph 0028). Therefore, Platt exemplifies that solvents such as tetrahydrofuran is included in mixtures including halogen atoms, such as chlorine.
Therefore, the Examiner maintains that Platt teaches tetrahydrofuran or n-methyl piperidine as solvents suitable in the process of manufacturing a sulfide solid electrolyte. Thus, the ordinary artisan would find it obvious to substitute one of these solvents for the other, such as n-methyl piperidine for tetrahydrofuran as described above, and would have a reasonable expectation of a predictable result that the modification would be useful in a raw material inclusion in the method of producing a crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte.
Further, the Examiner provides that there is nothing in either Tomoyuki or Platt to suggest that the proposed substitution would not be proper or desirable, and applicant has not provided any additional evidence that such a modification would not be sustainable besides citing that the reactants are different.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the disclosure of Mizuno and Hayashi have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Mizuno and Hayashi applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/O.A.J./ Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights