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 action is in response to applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 02/19/2026. Claims 1, 4, 7-11, and 13 are currently pending for examination on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 4, 7-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kubo et al. (US 2014/0004257) (Kubo).
Regarding claim 1, Kubo discloses a production method for a sulfide solid electrolyte (title; abstract), the method comprising: mixing a raw material inclusion containing at least two raw materials ([0007]-[0013]), wherein the raw material inclusion contains Li2S ([0010]), which reads on the claimed limitation that the raw material inclusion contains at least one atom selected from the group consisting of a lithium atom, a sulfur atom, a phosphorous atom, and a halogen atom. Kubo further discloses that the raw material inclusion further comprises P2S5 that is mixed with a dispersion medium, specifically a thiol derivative (ethane mercaptan) ([0007]-[0008]; [0035]; [0069]; [0112]-[0113]; see Example 1-3 in Table 1). It is clear that the combination of P2S5 with ethane mercaptan (C2H5SH) would result in a modified P2S5 with an organic group corresponding to formula (a-1), in which Ra1 is a monovalent organic group and Xa1 is a sulfur atom, because P2S5 reacts with the -SH group in ethane mercaptan, producing hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and the claimed modified P2S5. This is consistent with applicant’s own disclosure, which produces the claimed P2S5 through a reaction with P2S5 and a thiol derivative (see [0024]-[0030] of the instant specification). Thus, Kubo reads on all of the limitations in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Kubo discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. As set forth above, Kubo discloses the combination of P2S5 with a thiol derivative (ethane mercaptan) ([0112]-[0113]; see Example 1-3 in Table 1), which is the exact combination that the instant specification uses to create the claimed modified P2S5 according to formula (a-1) which contains a covalent bond between a phosphorus atom of P2S5 and sulfur (see [0024]-[0030] of the instant specification). Thus, it is considered inherent that Kubo satisfies the claimed limitations in claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, Kubo discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kubo further discloses that a mixing machine is used in the mixing ([0073]), reading on all of the limitations in claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Kubo discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kubo further discloses that the dispersion medium can further include triethyl amine ([0033]), which is complexing agent according to the claimed invention (see [0137] of the instant specification). Thus, Kubo reads on all of the limitations in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Kubo discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kubo further discloses that the mixing can be performed in a solvent ([0041]; [0057]; [0070]).
Regarding claim 10, Kubo discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kubo further discloses that the method comprises heating ([0077]).
Regarding claim 13, Kubo discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. As set forth above, Kubo discloses a combination of P2S5 with a thiol derivative (ethane mercaptan) ([0007]-[0008]; [0035]; [0069]; [0112]-[0113]; see Example 1-3 in Table 1), which is the same combination that the instant specification uses to create modified P2S5 with an organic group according to (a-1) where Xa1 is a sulfur atom (see [0024]-[0030] of the instant specification). Thus, it is considered inherent that Kubo satisfies all of the limitations in claim 13.
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.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al. (US 2014/0004257) (Kubo) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2021/0376377) (Tanaka) (of record).
Regarding claim 11, Kubo discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kubo fails to explicitly disclose, however, that the sulfide solid electrolyte contains a thio-LISICON Region II-type crystal structure.
However, this configuration is common in the art for sulfide solid electrolytes. For instance, Tanaka teaches a similar production method for a sulfide solid electrolyte (title; [0013]; [0177]), the method comprising mixing a raw material inclusion containing lithium sulfide, diphosphorus pentasulfide, and a lithium halide ([0044]). Tanaka further teaches that the sulfide solid electrolyte contains a thio-LISICON Region II-type crystal structure ([0015]; [0158]; [0161]-[0163]; [0210]). Tanaka further teaches that configuring the sulfide solid electrolyte to have this crystal structure leads to higher ionic conductivity ([0158]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the sulfide solid electrolyte disclosed by Kubo to have the claimed thio-LISICON Region II-type crystal structure, as taught by Tanaka, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would lead to higher ionic conductivity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims have overcome each and every drawings objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 11/20/2025.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended independent claim 1 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.
As such, claims 1, 4, 7-11, and 13 stand rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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.
/B.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights