DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/16/25 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 are currently pending. Claim 3 is cancelled. The amended claims do overcome the previously stated 103 rejections. However, upon further consideration, claims 1, 2, and 4-7 are rejected under the following new 103 rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi et al (JP 2018186017 A, machine translation) in view of Aihara et al (US 2019/0148769).
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 6, Takeuchi et al discloses an all-solid-state battery “102” comprising a positive electrode “114” (positive electrode layer / electrode mixture) comprising a sulfide-based solid electrolyte and a positive electrode active material, a negative electrode “116” (negative electrode layer), and a solid electrolyte layer “112” located between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, wherein the solid electrolyte layer includes a sulfide-based solid electrolyte and a lithium halide hydrate ([0024]-[0026],[0029],[0030]).
However, Takeuchi et al does not expressly teach a sulfide solid electrolyte comprising: a compound represented by a compositional formula, LiaPSbXc, wherein X represents at least one of elemental fluorine (F), elemental chlorine (Cl), elemental bromine (Br), and elemental iodine (I), a is from 3.0 to 6.5, b is from 3.5 to 5.5, and c is from 0.1 to 3.0; wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte has: peak A at 2θ = 20.7°±0.5° in an X-ray diffraction pattern obtained by performing X-ray diffraction measurement using CuKa1 radiation; peak B at 2θ = 25.4°± 1.0° in the X-ray diffraction pattern obtained by performing X-ray diffraction measurement using CuKa1 radiation; peak C at 2θ = 22.0°± 0.5° in the X-ray diffraction pattern obtained by performing X-ray diffraction measurement using CuKa1 radiation, the peak C being derived from the lithium halide hydrate; wherein a value of a ratio of IA to IB, IA/IB, is 0.05 or more, where IA is an intensity of the peak A, and IB is an intensity of the peak B, and a value of a ratio of IC to IB, IC/IB, is more than 0.02 or more and 2.0 or less, where IC is an intensity of the peak C (claim 1); wherein X represents one or both of the elemental chlorine and the elemental bromine (claim 2).
Aihara et al discloses a solid electrolyte having a composition represented by Li7-xPS6-xBrx, wherein 1.2<x<1.75 such as Li5.75PS4.75Br1.25 (X=Br), wherein when the solid electrolyte is analyzed by X-ray diffraction using CuKα radiation, a peak appears at 25.16°± 0.5° (peak B) ([0049]-[0052],[0086])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Takeuchi solid electrolyte layer to include a material represented by Li7-xPS6-xBrx, wherein 1.2<x<1.75 such as Li5.75PS4.75Br1.25 and a peak B at 2θ=25.4°±1.0° in order to increase the ion conductivity of the solid electrolyte, and at the same time, an activation energy of the solid electrolyte may be lowered ([0050]).
Examiner’s note: the Office takes the position that the limitation “peak A at 2θ = 20.7°±0.5° in an X-ray diffraction pattern obtained by performing X-ray diffraction measurement using CuKa1 radiation; peak C at 2θ = 22.0°± 0.5° in the X-ray diffraction pattern obtained by performing X-ray diffraction measurement using CuKa1 radiation, wherein a value of a ratio of IA to IB, IA/IB, is 0.05 or more, where IA is an intensity of the peak A, and IB is an intensity of the peak B, and a value of a ratio of IC to IB, IC/IB, is more than 0.02 or more and 2.0 or less, where IC is an intensity of the peak C” is an inherent characteristic of the Takeuchi/Aihara solid electrolyte layer because Takeuchi discloses the same lithium halide hydrate as the present invention and Aihara discloses the same compound represented by the compositional formula, LiaPSbXc as the present invention.
Regarding claim 5, Takeuchi et al also discloses a positive electrode/negative electrode (electrode mixture) comprising a positive electrode active material/negative electrode active material and the sulfide-based solid electrolyte ([0030],[0031]).
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi et al (JP 2018186017 A, machine translation) in view of Aihara et al (US 2019/0148769) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sung et al (US 2018/0138544).
However, Takeuchi et al as modified by Aihara et al does not expressly teach a sulfide solid electrolyte that has a percentage of weight reduction of 1.6% or more, and the percentage of weight reduction being measured by heating the sulfide solid electrolyte from 25°C to 400°C at a temperature increase rate of 10°C/min in thermogravimetry (claim 4).
Sung et al discloses a mass reduction of a sulfide-based solid electrolyte of about 3.3 wt% after heat-treatment of the mixture for 2 hrs at 260°C ([0085],[0093],[0094] and Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Takeuchi/Aihara solid electrolyte layer to include a percentage of weight reduction of 1.6% or more, the percentage of weight reduction being measured by heating the sulfide solid electrolyte to 260°C at a temperature increase rate of 10°C/min in thermogravimetry in order to sufficiently reduce the amount of impurities, thereby preventing the lowering the lithium-ionic conductivity of the sulfide-based solid electrolyte ([0076]).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi et al (JP 2018186017 A, machine translation) in view of Aihara et al (US 2019/0148769) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Senga et al (US 2018/0162730).
However, Takeuchi et al as modified by Aihara et al does not expressly teach a mixing step of mixing a sulfide electrolyte raw material with a lithium halide hydrate to obtain a mixture; and a heating step of heating the mixture to 50°C or more in a vacuum (claim 7).
Senga et al discloses a production method of sulfide solid electrolyte comprising mixing a sulfur containing complex containing lithium sulfide (sulfide electrolyte raw material) with lithium halide; wherein lithium halide may be in a form of a solution prepared by dissolving it in water (lithium halide hydrate); wherein the
production method of sulfide solid electrolyte includes heating at a temperature of
150°C or higher, wherein the heating is carried out in vacuum ([0047],[0111]-[0115]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Takeuchi/Aihara method of producing a sulfide solid electrolyte to include a mixing step of mixing a sulfide electrolyte raw material with a lithium halide hydrate to obtain a mixture; and a heating step of heating the mixture to 150°C or more in a vacuum in order to utilize a commercially available lithium halide hydrate to form into a crystalline solid electrolyte and to prevent the crystalline solid electrolyte from being degraded ([0111],[0115]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-7 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 TONY S CHUO whose telephone number is (571)272-0717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on 571-270-1292. 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.
/T.S.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 3/26/2025