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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/17/2026 has been entered.
This office action addresses pending claims 1-9, 11-15, and 18-37. Claims 1-7 and 24-37 were previously withdrawn. Claim 8 and 14-15 were amended and claim 16 was cancelled in the response filed 8/17/2026.
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) 8-9, 11-15, 18, and 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara (JP 2014-093263, see machine translation).
Regarding claims 8 and 13-15, 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 (claim 8) water in an amount from about 40 ppm to about 1000 ppm, or wherein water is present in an amount of (claim 13) about 100 ppm, (claim 14) about 250 ppm, or (claim 15) about 500 ppm, Sugawara does not explicitly disclose these limitations.
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.
Sugawara further provides an example [Example 10] having about 3700 ppm [see below for determination of value]
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.
As such, Sugawara teaches that 1) “water can be used as a raw material as part or all of the oxygen source” (page 4), 2) “water can be replaced with Li2O or P2O5” (page 4), 3) provides an example [example 10] where the amount of water is low [about 3700 ppm], and 4) provides an example [example 9] having the same reactants as example 10 but replacing water with P2S5 [0 ppm water]. Therefore, Sugawara reasonably suggests water amounts between zero to about 3700 ppm.
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 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 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 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).
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 8/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to optimize the amount of water in Sugawara. Applicant argues that the skilled artisan would have no reasonable expectation of success in meaningfully reducing drying time by reducing the amount of water used in the milling process.
This is not considered persuasive. Applicant has not provided any evidence of the assertion. Arguments by Applicant cannot take the place of evidence, see MPEP 716.01(c).
In addition, because Sugawara teaches that water (a liquid) can be replaced with Li2O or P2O5 (solids) (page 4), there is a reduction in total amount of liquid when replacing water with either Li2O or P2O, and therefore a reduction in drying time.
Therefore, 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.
Applicant further argues that “the present application discloses an unexpected result having water content in the range of 50-1000 ppm as compared to no water” on page 2 [Examiner notes the presently claimed range is 40-1000 ppm]. Applicant argues, that as shown in Example 2, electrolyte materials prepared by the claimed methods using a water content from 40-1000 ppm as claimed in claim 8 show improved discharge capacity, first cycle efficiency, and charge resistance as compared to a similar material prepared with no water. Further arguing that the Examples show electrolytes made using a water content of 50, 100, 250, 500, and 1000 ppm showed improvement in one or more of these aspects.
This is not considered persuasive. It is firstly noted there are no tests using 50 ppm of water in Figures 3A-C.
Secondly, it noted that Applicant has the burden of explaining the unexpected results. "[A]ppellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness." Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). See MPEP 716.02(b). Applicant merely refers to Example 2, and broadly to Figures 3A-C for support of unexpected results, without explanation, and merely noting that “a water content of 50, 100, 250, 500, and 1000 ppm showed improvement in one or more of these aspects”. Applicant has not described or explained how this is unexpected.
Even still, MPEP 716.02(d) states “to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). The claimed range includes any electrolyte having Li, P, and a halide, with any solvent and a water in an amount of 40-1000 ppm. However, none of the examples even disclose what electrolyte is being tested. At best, paragraph [0074] states that the electrolyte includes “phosphorus and sulfur” [claim 8 does not require sulfur, and therefore perhaps sulfur is a requirement], and paragraphs [0080] and [0081] refer to an electrolyte of composition Li5.5PS4.5-xOxCl, a genus (wherein the composition of [0081] is used with 100,000 ppm water), and it is not even clear if said Li5.5PS4.5-xOxCl is the compound of example 2 and Figures 3A-C. Therefore, at worst, the specification does not even disclose what electrolyte has the alleged benefits, and at best, only discloses a genus of electrolyte. Therefore, because the specification, at best, only discloses one electrolyte compound, there is not a sufficient number of tests inside and outside the range.
None of the examples disclose what solvent of “one or more solvents” is used. Therefore, there is not a sufficient number of tests inside and outside the range.
In addition, Applicant has only provided tests at 0, 100, 250, 500, and 1000 ppm water. There is no test at the lower end of range [40 ppm] and the lowest test is more than twice the claimed amount at 100 ppm, and there is no test outside the upper range [no test above 1000 ppm]. Therefore, the criticality of this range has not been demonstrated.
In addition, the specification discloses the range of 5000 ppm (paragraph [0035]), or even up to 100,000 ppm (paragraph [0036]). Because the specification discloses that the range can include up to hundred times more than the claimed range of 1000 ppm, the criticality of the claimed range clearly has not been demonstrated because the specification has ranges much higher.
Additionally, as set forth in MPEP 716.02(d), whether unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, “objective evidenced of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.” In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occurred over the entire claimed range, In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980).
Again, because the claimed range includes any electrolyte having Li, P, and halide, and includes any solvent, and at best the examples have one tested electrolyte (said electrolyte having S and O as well), and no disclosed solvent, the alleged unexpected results do not occur over the entire claimed range.
With regards to the Figures 3A-C for showing improved discharge capacity, first cycle efficiency, and charge resistance, none of the examples are definitively better or show unexpected results compared to 0 ppm.
Discharge capacity efficiency: low amounts of water (100, 250, 500 ppm) have higher discharge capacity [better] than zero amount of water but high amounts of water (1000 ppm) have the worst discharge capacity.
First cycle efficiency: high amounts of water (500, 1000 ppm) have higher efficiency than zero amount of water but low amounts of water (100, 250 ppm) have the worst.
As shown in Figure 3C (charge resistance), the comparative example of 0 ppm demonstrates the lowest resistance out of all examples, which is superior to the other examples. Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, none of the examples within the claimed range perform better than the one example outside the claimed range in terms of “charge resistance”.
Thus, as a whole, there is no clear advantage, and therefore it does not appear there are unexpected results for the claimed range.
Therefore, at least because the Applicant has not explained the proffered data, because the criticality of the ranges has not been demonstrated, because the allegations of unexpected results are not commensurate in scope with the claims, because the evidence provided does not show that the claimed range actually performed better or unexpectedly, the allegations of unexpected results is not considered persuasive.
Conclusion
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