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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group III in the reply filed on 01/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Claims 8 and 10 are dependent claims and thus are not subject to the unity of invention standards. This is not found persuasive because contrary to applicants’ arguments, MPEP 1850 (II) states that if an independent claim does not avoid the prior art, then the question whether there is still an inventive link between all the claims dependent on that claim needs to be carefully considered. If there is no link remaining, an objection of lack of unity a posteriori (that is, arising only after assessment of the prior art) may be raised. In the instant case, Claims 8 and 10 of Group III do not make a contribution over Higuchi et al. (US20160164136A1) as stated in the office action filed 09/24/2025. Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper, is therefore made FINAL and claims 8 and 10 are withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 02/06/2023 and 01/22/2026 have been entered. Claims 1 and 4 are amended, Claims 5-7 and 9 are canceled, Claims 8 and 10 are withdrawn from consideration and Claims 1-4 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/06/2023 and 05/04/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al. (US 20180358653 A1), hereinafter "Maruyama" in view of Higuchi et al. (US 20160164136 A1), hereinafter "Higuchi" as evidenced by Huang et al. (CN 106769822 A - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Huang". Maruyama and Higuchi et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely sulfide solid electrolytes.
In regard to Claim 1, Maruyama et al. discloses a method for producing a sulfide solid electrolyte material comprising a Li source and an M source as raw materials (Maruyama, Abstract), weighing and providing the lithium and M sources according to a desired ratio, then mixing the Li source and the M source and putting the mixed raw materials into a heating furnace (Maruyama, Examples 1-5) wherein the lithium source is Li2Co3 and/or Li2O (Maruyama, [0030]) and the M source is phosphorus or phosphorus oxide (Maruyama, [0029, 0033]) and the temperature of the furnace is 350-550°C (Maruyama, [0068]) wherein the method may be performed under air or any atmosphere selected by the skilled artisan as Maruyama discloses the atmosphere is not particularly limited (Maruyama, [0069]).
Maruyama et al. also discloses providing an S source gas comprising hydrogen sulfide to process a raw material LiOH to Li2S, and providing an environment in which the gas containing the S source is introduced at the set ventilation rate and holding the temperature (Maruyama, [0094-0096]) but is silent as to using a gas generation device, carrier gas, flow meter, tail gas, and gas scrubbing as part of the process of supplying the S source gas. However, this type of gas phase synthesis is a technique well understood to the skilled artisan as evidenced by Huang et al. which discloses a gas phase synthesis device which comprises a gas generation device, carrier gas, flow meter, tail gas treatment device, and gas scrubbing as part of the process (Huang, Abstract, [18]) and a benefit of the system having good air tightness, uniform mixing, simple structure, convenient operation and stable operation (Huang, Abstract). Thus, providing the S source gas in a manner consistent with the technique and device in Huang is a known conventional technique in the art and would amount to nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Further, while Maruyama is silent as to providing the S source gas to the furnace after combination of the lithium source and M element, Higuchi teaches a method of gas phase synthesis for a sulfide solid-electrolyte material, comprising: weighing out an Li source and an M source, as raw materials, according to a desired ratio (Higuchi, Abstract), then mixing the Li source and the M source, and putting the mixed raw materials into a heating furnace wherein the S source gas is circulating h2S gas (Higuchi, Paragraph 0047-0051]). This process creates a sulfide material as desired by the skilled artisan and is a known technique that may reasonably be used in the creation of the solid electrolyte of Maruyama, which discloses using circulating H2S on a lithium source alone then using this sulfonated lithium source in the mixture before entering the furnace.
Finally, while the duration of the heating in the furnace is easily controlled by the skilled artisan, Maruyama and Higuchi disclose different windows of time for this process and Maruyama discloses applying H2S to the lithium source for as long as 24 hours. Thus, if applying the H2S in the furnace to both the lithium and M source the skilled artisan of Higuchi may provide the treatment for up to the same disclosed 24 hours to achieve the desired result. Therefore, the skilled artisan of Maruyama would not need undue experimentation to provide the lithium source and the M element included in the SSE of Maruyama to a gas phase synthesis device with the configuration of components in Huang and then provide the H2S to the furnace as taught in Higuchi to achieve the desired result of production of the sulfide solid electrolyte of Maruyama.
In regard to Claim 2, Maruyama in view of Higuchi as evidenced by Huang et al. discloses the method of claim 1 wherein: the M element comprises P, the M source comprises a P source and the P source is P2S3 or P2S5 (Maruyama, [0029-0031]), the S containing gas is hydrogen sulfide (Maruyama, [0094-0096]). While Maruyama discloses the use of N2 gas it is used before and after the H2S an not necessarily as a carrier gas. However, Huang et al. discloses a gas phase synthesis device which comprises a gas generation device, N2 carrier gas, flow meter, tail gas treatment device, and gas scrubbing as part of the process (Huang, Abstract, [18]) and a benefit of the system having good air tightness, uniform mixing, simple structure, convenient operation and stable operation (Huang, Abstract). Thus, providing the S source gas in a manner consistent with the technique and device in Huang is a known conventional technique in the art and would amount to nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al. (US 20180358653 A1), hereinafter "Maruyama" in view of Higuchi et al. (US 20160164136 A1), hereinafter "Higuchi" as evidenced by Huang et al. (CN 106769822 A - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Huang" as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Iwasaki et al. (US 20180166740 A1), hereinafter "Iwasaki". Maruyama, Higuchi and Iwasaki et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely sulfide solid electrolytes.
In regard to Claim 3, Maruyama in view of Higuchi as evidenced by Huang et al. discloses the method of claim 1. While the type and duration of the mixing step is easily controlled by the skilled artisan and Maruyama and Higuchi disclose different durations of ball milling and the like they are silent as to the duration of mechanical mixing in the 1-8 hour range.
Iwasaki et al. discloses a method for producing a sulfide solid electrolyte that mixes a raw material lithium source and M source and uses mechanical mixing in a range of 1 to 50 hours which is set so that the raw material for an electrolyte can be amorphized and the material for a sulfide solid electrolyte can be obtained (Iwasaki, Abstract, [0040], Example 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference, as overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 4, Maruyama in view of Higuchi as evidenced by Huang et al. discloses the method of claim 1. Maruyama discloses a heating rate calculated to 4.83°C/min and a natural cooling (Maruyama, Example 1) which anticipates the claimed range. While Maruyama and Higuchi disclose different ventilation rates of the S source gas this rate is easily controlled by the skilled artisan and Iwasaki et al. discloses a sulfide solid electrolyte where hydrogen sulfide ventilation rate is in a beneficial range of 0.1 mL/min to 5000mL/min (Iwasaki, [0052]), which overlaps the claimed range. In regard to the limitation of the gas washing duration, a person skilled in the art can easily make routine adjustments to the scrubbing duration according to practical requirements without undue experimentation and the duration of scrubbing falling within 10 minutes to 120 minutes would be obvious to try for the skilled artisan and would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights