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 .
This office action addresses pending claims 1-9, 11-16, 18-37. Claims 1-7 and 24-37 were previously withdrawn. Claims 8 and 13-16 were amended and claims 10 and 17 were cancelled in the response filed 3/10/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/10/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final office action on 12/29/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 14-16 all dependent from claim 13, wherein claim 13 recites “water is present in an amount of about 100 ppm”. However, claims 14-16 all recite water amounts greater than the 100 ppm of claim 13 (“about 250 ppm”, “about 500 ppm”, “about 1000 ppm”). Therefore claims 14-16 do not include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 8-9, 11-12, 18 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugawara (JP 2014-093263, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, Sugawara discloses a solid electrolyte including a lithium (Li) element, a phosphorous (P) element, a sulfur (S) element, an oxygen (O) element, and a halogen element (abstract). The solid electrolyte is made by reacting raw materials [precursors] including a Li source, a P source, an S source, an O source, and a halogen source [containing materials] (pages 2-3 of translation). Water can be used as a raw material for part or all of the oxygen source, and can be added in the raw material stage (page 4). A mechanical milling process can be used, which takes all the raw materials to be mixed and reacted while being pulverized [process comprising milling a mixture] (page 5). An organic solvent can also be added (page 5).
With regards to the limitation of water in an amount from about 40 ppm to about 5000 ppm, in Example 10, lithium sulfide [lithium containing material], P2S5 [phosphorous containing material], and LiBr [halide] are added to toluene and water and put into a mill (pages 11-12). Sugawara teaches, in Example 10, that lithium sulfide (32.9 g, 0.717 mol), P2S5 (53.1 g, 0.239 mol), LiBr (14.0 g, 0.159 mol), toluene (1248 mL), and water (0.86 g, 0.0477 mol) were added together (pages 11-12).
Converting 1248 mL of toluene into mol is 11.68 mol (1248 mL toluene * (0.8623 g/mL) / (92.141 g/mol)). Adding the mols of all the substances together is 12.84 mol (11.68 mol toluene + 0.717 mol lithium sulfide + 0.239 mol P2S5 + 0.159 mol LiBr + 0.0477 mol water). Therefore, the mol of water in the mixture is about 0.37% (.0477/12.84 * 100 = 0.37%), which is about 3700 ppm. Therefore, Sugawara teaches that water is in an amount from about 40 ppm to about 5000 ppm.
Regarding claim 9, Sugawara discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sugawara further teaches that the raw materials include sulfur containing materials (pages 2, and 11-12).
Regarding claim 11, Sugawara discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sugawara teaches drying after milling at a temperature of 160C (see Example 10 in view of Example 9, pages 11-12), and therefore discloses heating the mixture after the milling.
Regarding claim 12, Sugawara discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sugawara teaches drying after milling at a temperature of 160C (see Example 10 in view of Example 9, pages 11-12), and teaches that a heat processing temperature of 150-360C is used to obtain a crystal glass (page 7). Therefore, Sugawara teaches a sufficient temperature to cause crystallization.
Regarding claim 18, Sugawara discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sugawara teaches adding water to the raw mixture with toluene and then milling (pages 11-12). Therefore, Sugawara teaches that water is added to the solvent prior to the milling.
Regarding claims 21-22, Sugawara discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sugawara teaches that the solvent is toluene (pages 11-12), and further teaches that the solvent can also be xylene, chlorobenzene, and heptane (page 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 13-16, 20, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara (JP 2014-093263, see machine translation).
Regarding claims 13-16, Sugawara discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Sugawara does not explicitly disclose wherein water is present in an amount of (claim 13) about 100 ppm, (claim 14) about 250 ppm, (claim 15) about 500 ppm, (claim 16) about 1000 ppm.
However, Sugawara teaches that water can be used as a raw material as part or all of the oxygen source, and can be replaced with Li2O or P2O5 (page 4). That is, Sugawara teaches that the amount of water can be modified or adjusted by replacing with Li2O or P2O5. Sugawara provides in a different example (Example 9) a milling process using the same reactants (lithium sulfide, P2S5, LiBr, and toluene) with the replacement of water with P2O5 (page 11). Therefore, Sugawara provides an example of the replacement of water.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, by routine experimentation, the amount of water in the milling mixture (including an amount of about 100 ppm, about 250 ppm, about 500 ppm, or about 1000 ppm) by replacing water with Li2O or P2O5 in the mixture of Sugawara for the purpose of reducing the time needed for subsequent drying while still providing the oxygen source.
Regarding claim 20, Sugawara discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Sugawara does not explicitly disclose wherein the amount of water added is predetermined based on the amount of water contained in the plurality of the electrolyte precursors and the amount of water contained in the solvent.
However, Sugawara teaches that water may be used as part or all of the oxygen source (page 4). Therefore, Sugawara suggests modifying or optimizing the amount of water added in order to provide part or all of the oxygen source.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, by routine experimentation, the amount of water added (including taking into account the amount of water in the sources and/or solvents) to provide a predetermined amount of water to provide the desired part or all of the oxygen source for making the solid electrolyte.
Regarding claim 23, Sugawara discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sugawara further teaches that the solvent can be ethers, esters, or alcohols (page 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to select such a solvent (ether, ester, or alcohol) to use in the milling process of Example 10 (pages 11-12).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara (JP 2014-093263, see machine translation), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Visco (US 2021/0320328).
Regarding claim 19, Sugawara discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Sugawara discloses purifying the lithium sulfide [an electrolyte precursor] (page 3), Sugawara does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of electrolyte precursors is anhydrous.
Visco discloses preparation of anhydrous lithium sulfide purified suitably for applications in batteries and synthesis of solid electrolytes (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the purified anhydrous lithium sulfide of Visco as the purified lithium sulfide of Sugawara because Visco teaches that the purified anhydrous lithium sulfide is suitable for applications in batteries and synthesis of solid electrolytes which is same as Sugawara. Therefore, the combination amounts to a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Sugawara does not disclose the amended limitations of claim, specifically in an amount from about 40 ppm to about 5000 ppm.
This is not considered persuasive. Based upon a different interpretation and calculation of Sugawara, Sugawara does disclose an embodiment where water is in an amount from about 40 ppm to about 5000 ppm (see pages 11-12, and subsequent interpretation and calculation above).
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 JACOB BUCHANAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 PM (ET).
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.
/JACOB BUCHANAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights