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 .
Claim Status
This Office action is responsive to amendments and remarks filed on 4/21/2026.
Claims 1, 6 and 7 have been amended.
Claims 2-5 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 6-16 are currently pending with 13-15 withdrawn from consideration.
Please note that applicant erroneously indicated that claim 16 is withdrawn when in fact it has been considered and rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues on page 8 of the remarks that the examiners interpretation of the claim is too broad. The examiner disagrees with the applicant's assertion. The examiner asserts the position that the basket silsesquixane structure reads on the claimed Y component as it is currently written since its a type of alkoxysilane (i.e. alkoxysilyl group). On page 9 applicant appears to be arguing the withdrawn method claims. These claims have not been considered. The core of the applicant's argument regarding claim 12 rests on the applicant's assertion that claim 1 is allowable, this argument is not persuasive for the reasons already presented above. .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20170133713 A1, MAKINO et al.
Regarding claims 1 and 7. [abstract] A solid electrolyte, comprising:
[0083] a sulfide solid electrolyte particle; and
[0011] a hydrophobic compound on a surface of the sulfide solid electrolyte particle, wherein
[0108] the hydrophobic compound includes a fluoroalkyl group substituted with 3 to 13 fluorine groups. MAKINO [0108] discloses trifluoromethyl.
MAKINO [0312] synthesizes a silsesquioxane compound with a mixed solution of vinyl triethoxysilane and 2-(trifluoromethyl)ethyl trimethoxysilane where
the hydrophobic compound is represented by Chemical Formula 1:
[Chemical Formula 1]
(X)a - (Y)b - (Z)c
in Chemical Formula 1,
[0047] the X is HO-, called a hydroxy group wherein
R1, R2, R3, and R4 are each independently hydrogen, or a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C20 alkyl group,
[0083] (Li2S) as Y is a metal oxide also meeting the limitations of claim 7,
[0312] the 2-(trifluoromethyl)ethyl as Z is -(CH2)d -(CF2)e -CF3, and
1 ≤ a ≤ 10, 0 ≤ b ≤ 3, 1 ≤ c ≤ 3, 1 ≤ d ≤ 6, and 0 ≤ e ≤ 5.
Regarding claim 6. MAKINO [0129] discloses the solid electrolyte as claimed in claim 1, wherein “RN represents a hydrogen atom” which can be represented in Chemical Formula 1, when X is HO-, H2N-, or HS-.
Regarding claim 8. MAKINO [0011] discloses the solid electrolyte as claimed in claim 1, wherein the hydrophobic compound covers a portion or the whole of the surface of the sulfide solid electrolyte particle. This limitation is met in the rejection of claim 1 just by being present.
Regarding claim 9. MAKINO discloses the solid electrolyte as claimed in claim 1, wherein in table 3 MAKINO discloses the hydrophobic compound is included in an amount of about 4 parts by weight to about 8 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the sulfide solid electrolyte particle thus anticipating the range with sufficient specificity.
Regarding claim 10. MAKINO discloses the solid electrolyte as claimed in claim 1, wherein
MAKINO [0084] discloses the sulfide solid electrolyte particle includes Li2S-P2S5.
Regarding claim 11. MAKINO [0085] discloses the solid electrolyte as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte particle includes an argyrodite-type sulfide in the form of Li2S—Li3PO4—P2S5 which meets the definition of an argyrodite-type sulfide in the instant specification.
Regarding claim 16. MAKINO [0014] discloses an all-solid-state battery, comprising:
a positive electrode,
a negative electrode, and
a solid electrolyte layer between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, wherein
the positive electrode or solid electrolyte layer includes the solid electrolyte as claimed in claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170133713 A1, MAKINO et al.
Regarding claim 12. MAKINO discloses the solid electrolyte as claimed in claim 1.
MAKINO does not explicitly disclose an average particle diameter (D50) of the sulfide solid electrolyte particles is about 0.5 µm to about 5.0 µm.
MAKINO [0092] discloses the “The volume-average particle diameter of the inorganic solid electrolyte is not particularly limited, but is preferably 0.01 μm or larger and more preferably 0.1 μm or larger. The upper limit thereof is preferably 100 μm or smaller and more preferably 50 μm or smaller.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used an average particle diameter (D50) of the sulfide solid electrolyte particles from 0.5 µm to about 5.0 µm in the instantly claimed range.
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 LAWRENCE LA RAIA III whose telephone number is (703)756-5441. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 6:00am-4:00pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571) 272-1330. 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.
LAWRENCE LA RAIA III
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights