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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/17/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claims 1, 2, and 4-13 are currently pending. Claim 3 is cancelled. No claims have been amended.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that “the peak B of claim 1 is closely related to an argyrodite-type crystal structure of a sulfide solid electrolyte. In contrast, Takeuchi does not disclose or suggest a sulfide solid electrolyte having an argyrodite-type crystal structure. Rather, in Takeuchi, the alleged sulfide solid electrolyte has a garnet-type crystal structure or a garnet-type similar crystal structure, such as LLZ and NASICON type structures … Note that a garnet-type crystal structure is technically quite different from an argyrodite-type crystal structure. Thus, Takeuchi does not inherently
disclose or suggest the claimed features relating to peaks A, B, and C of claim 1
although Takeuchi allegedly describes a sulfide solid electrolyte containing a
compound represented by formula LiaPSbXc and a lithium halide hydrate. With respect to Utsuno, as shown in Figs. 2, 5, and 8-11, Utsuno does not disclose or suggest at least peak C (20=22.0°±0.5°) in the X-ray diffraction measurement of claim 1”.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Office first points out that Utsuno already teaches a sulfide solid electrolyte having an argyrodite-type crystal structure and a peak that appears at 25.62° (peak B). The Takeuchi reference is relied upon for teaching the concept of adding a lithium halide hydrate to a solid electrolyte layer in order to utilize a specific material that functions as an adhesive that ensures physical and electrical connection between the solid electrolyte layer and the electrodes (see para. [0029]). Although Takeuchi teaches examples of the solid electrolyte material having a garnet-type crystal structure or NASICON-type structure, the specific crystal structure does not appear to be critical to the Takeuchi invention. Since Takeuchi also teaches examples of sulfide-based solid electrolytes, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings of Takeuchi is also applicable to the Utsuno sulfide solid electrolyte in order to provide the same advantage of ensuring physical and electrical connection between the solid electrolyte layer and the electrodes. In response to the argument that “Utsuno does not disclose or suggest at least peak C (20=22.0°±0.5°) in the X-ray diffraction measurement of claim 1”, the Office first points out that para. [0024] of the present application states “diffraction peak C described in the present invention is a peak that is derived from the lithium halide hydrate”. Since there is motivation to modify the Utsuno sulfide solid electrolyte to include lithium halide hydrate, the Office maintains the contention that the combination of Utsuno and Takeuchi necessarily results in a sulfide solid electrolyte having a peak A, a peak B, and a peak C as recited in claim 1.
Therefore, upon further consideration, claims 1, 2, and 4-13 stand rejected under the following 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, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Utsuno et al (WO 2018/164224 A1) using (US 2020/0006808) as an equivalent English translation, in view of Takeuchi et al (JP 2018186017 A, machine translation).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 12, Utsuno et al discloses a lithium ion battery (solid-state battery) comprising a positive electrode layer comprising a sulfide-based solid electrolyte and a positive electrode active material, a negative electrode layer, and a solid electrolyte layer located between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer, wherein the solid electrolyte layer includes sulfide solid electrolyte particles, the sulfide solid electrolyte particles comprising: a composition represented by Lia(P1-αMα)SbXc such as Li5.4PS4.4Cl1.6 (compound represented by a compositional formula LiaPSbXc), wherein X is preferably one or more halogens selected from F, Cl, Br, and I, wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte is analyzed by X-ray diffraction using CuKα radiation, a peak appears at 25.62° (peak B), wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte has a cumulative volume particle diameter D50 of 4.3 um, and the cumulative volume particle diameter D50 is measured through particle size distribution analysis using a laser diffraction and scattering method at a cumulative volume of 50 vol% of the sulfide solid electrolyte; wherein the Li3PS4 crystal structure contains only chlorine as a halogen; wherein the Li3PS4 crystal structure contains only chlorine and bromine as halogens; wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte particles is inherently a powder that is a collection of particles ([0074]-[0076],[0141]-[0152],[0163],[0194], [0197],[0208]-[0212]).
However, Utsuno et al does not expressly teach a sulfide solid electrolyte comprising a lithium halide hydrate and 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 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).
Takeuchi et al discloses a solid electrolyte layer “112” comprising a sulfide-based solid electrolyte and a specific material “124” that is a lithium halide hydrate ([0026],[0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Utsuno solid electrolyte layer to a lithium halide hydrate in order to utilize a specific material that functions as a lithium ion conductive assistant and also functions as an adhesive that ensures physical and electrical connection between the solid electrolyte layer and the electrodes ([0029]).
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, the peak C being derived from the lithium halide hydrate contained in the sulfide solid electrolyte, 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 Utsuno/Takeuchi solid electrolyte layer because Utsuno as modified by Takeuchi discloses the same sulfide solid electrolyte comprising a compound represented by the compositional formula, LiaPSbXc and a lithium halide hydrate as the present invention.
Regarding claim 5, Utsuno et al also discloses an electrode mix (electrode mixture) comprising an active material and the sulfide solid electrolyte particles ([0112]).
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Utsuno et al in view of Takeuchi et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sung et al (US 2018/0138544).
However, Utsuno et al as modified by Takeuchi 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 Utsuno/Takeuchi 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 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Utsuno et al in view of Takeuchi et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Senga et al (US 2018/0162730).
However, Utsuno et al as modified by Takeuchi 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 Utsuno/Takeuchi 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]).
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 9/10/2026
Prosecution Insights