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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 2 are amended, Claims 1-4 and 8 and 10 are pending and Claims 8 and 10 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 Fujii et al. (US 20230178799 A1), hereinafter "Fujii" in view of Nickel et al. (US 20220340425 A1), hereinafter "Nickel" as evidenced by Limburn et al. (Oxychalcogenides for transparent p-type conductors, University of Southampton, Doctoral Thesis, 202pp (2019)), hereinafter "Limburn" and Cuya et al. (Thermogravimetric study of the sulfurization of TiO2 nanoparticles using CS2 and the decomposition of their sulfurized product, Thermochimica Acta 410 (2004) 27–34), hereinafter "Cuya". Fujii, Nickel, Limburn and Cuya et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely sulfide interactions.
In regard to Claim 1, Fujii et al. discloses a method of gas phase synthesis for a sulfide solid-electrolyte material, comprising weighing a Li source and an M source as raw materials, according to a desired ratio, then mixing the Li source and the M source, and putting the mixed raw materials into a heating furnace, wherein the Li source comprises at least one of Li2CO3, Li2O, LiOH, LiCl, lithium acetate, lithium sulfate, lithium nitrate, or lithium metal (Fujii, Abstract, [0045-0047, 0050, 0080]) and adding an S source to a sulfur-source gas generation device, wherein the S source comprises one or more of an S-containing gas (CS2), a sulfur-containing organic compound, a polysulfide, a sulfate, or a metal sulfide (Fujji, [0081, 0084]).
Fujii et al. also discloses connecting a carrier gas generation device, the sulfur-source gas generation device and the heating furnace in sequence to form a gas phase synthesis device; carrying a gas containing the S source by a carrier gas, heating the heating furnace up to 750 °C, at a set heating rate in an environment in which the gas containing the S source is introduced at the set ventilation rate holding the temperature for up to 24 hours, and then cooling to room temperature; and after the cooling, removing a sulfide solid-electrolyte material, from the heating furnace (Fujii, [0082-0088, 0095,0098]).
While Fujii discloses using a lithium source and M source precursor to form a desired solid electrolyte by gas phase synthesis it is silent as to the materials comprising Sn or Li4SnS4 as the final solid electrolyte. However, the skilled artisan would be well aware that a lithium source of Li2CO3 or Li2O, an M source of SnS2, and an S source gas would reasonably form an Li4SnS4 solid electrolyte as evidenced by Nickel et al. which discloses a beneficial Li4SnS4 electrolyte formed from a lithium source of Li2CO3 or Li2O, an M source of SnS2, and an S source gas (CS2) (Nickel, Claims 1 and 3)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the Li and M source precursors taught in Nickel as the materials of Fujii et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of success and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Lastly, while Fujii discloses connecting a carrier gas generation device, the sulfur-source gas generation device and the heating furnace in sequence to form a gas phase synthesis device and carrying a gas containing the S source by a carrier gas, it is silent as to providing a gas flow meter and a tail gas treatment device in that sequence and fails to explicitly disclose performing gas washing on the heating furnace for a certain period of time at a set ventilation rate and after the gas washing is completed, heating the heating furnace. However, the skilled artisan would be well aware of such configurations of gas phase synthesis devices as taught in Limburn and Cuya et al.
Limburn discloses a gas phase synthesis which converts an oxide containing carbonate precursor into a metal sulfide using CS2 gas wherein the system has a carrier gas generation device (N2), a sulfur-source gas generation device (CS2 bubbler), the heating furnace (quartz tube furnace), and a tail gas treatment device (hydroxide/bleach bubblers) in sequence to form a gas phase synthesis device; carrying a gas containing the S source by a carrier gas (CS2 by way of N2), and performing gas washing on the heating furnace for a certain period of time at a set ventilation rate (purged with reaction gas before heating); after the gas washing is completed, heating the heating furnace to at a set heating rate in an environment in which the gas containing the S source is introduced at the set ventilation rate, holding the temperature hours, and then cooling to room temperature which has the benefit of neutralizing unreacted gases (Limburn, pg 147).
Cuya et al. likewise discusses a gas phase synthesis device which converts a solid metal oxide to a sulfide by reaction with CS2 gas wherein a tube furnace is evacuated for 30 minutes before heating and refilled with N2 and only then, still before the heating step, CS2 carried by N2 is introduced into the reaction tube (performing gas washing on the furnace) and the N2 flow is accurately measured by a digital flow meter (Cuya, 2.2).
Therefore it was already known before the effective filing date of the current invention to convert stable carbonate/oxide precursors to sulfides in a tube furnace by first purging the furnace with a CS2 containing inert carrier gas and then heating while maintaining that sulfur-containing gas, with the CS2 generated by bubbling carrier gas through liquid CS2, and the exhaust subsequently scrubbed as taught in Limburn which is also taught in Cuya, which utilizes a known digital flow meter in the sequence and thus it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan of Fujii et al. to provide a flow meter, gas wash the furnace before heating and provide tail gas treatment as taught in Limburn and Cuya as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of success and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claim 2, Fujii in view of Nickel, Limburn and Cuya et al. discloses the method of claim 1. Fujii et al. also discloses wherein the S-containing gas comprises CS2 (Fujii, [0048, 0087]) and the carrier gas comprises N2 (Fujii, [0082, 0085]).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii et al. (US 20230178799 A1), hereinafter "Fujii" in view of Nickel et al. (US 20220340425 A1), hereinafter "Nickel" as evidenced by Limburn et al. (Oxychalcogenides for transparent p-type conductors, University of Southampton, Doctoral Thesis, 202pp (2019)), hereinafter "Limburn" and Cuya et al. (Thermogravimetric study of the sulfurization of TiO2 nanoparticles using CS2 and the decomposition of their sulfurized product, Thermochimica Acta 410 (2004) 27–34), hereinafter "Cuya" as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Iwasaki et al. (US 20180166740 A1), hereinafter "Iwasaki". Fujii, Nickel, Limburn and Cuya et al. and Iwasaki et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely sulfide interactions.
In regard to Claim 3, Fujii in view of Nickel, Limburn and Cuya 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 Fujii discloses mixing in accordance with the desired sulfide electrolyte, it is 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, Fujii in view of Nickel, Limburn and Cuya et al. discloses the method of claim 1. Fujii et al. discloses a cooling rate of 0.01 °C/sec or higher (Fujii, [0099]), which overlaps the claimed range and Limburn discloses natural cooling. While Fujii is silent as to the heating rate under S gas, Limburn et al. discloses a heating rate of 10°C/min (Limburn, Pg 147), which anticipates the claimed range.
While Fujii et al. is silent as to 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. 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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4 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
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 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
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights