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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In this instance, the abstract recites the phrases that can be implied “of the present disclosure” (in the 1st line) and “The present disclosure achieves…” (in the 4th line).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0008], 8th line, replace “resistant” with “resistance”.
In paragraph [0044], 2nd line, delete “the” before “precursor”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term “Ketjen black”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application (see paragraph [0051] of the specification). The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "or the like" (in this instance, “type” of “argyrodite type”) renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Since claims 2-12 depend from claim 1, these claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
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, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishimura et al. (US 2022/0037659).
Regarding independent claim 1, as well as claims 7 and 12, Nishimura et al. disclose a sulfide solid electrolyte of a solid-state battery (see abstract; paragraphs [0003] and [0032]-[0035]; and Figure 1), in which the sulfide solid electrolyte comprises the following features:
an “argyrodite type” crystal phase (see paragraph [0035]); and
containing Li, Ge, Sb, S, I, and A, wherein A is an anion of a halogen element that includes a bromide ion Br- (see paragraphs [0033] and [0034]), such that since Nishimura et al. disclose polyatomic anion structures, including PS43- and GeS44- (see paragraph [0034]), the ionic radius would be larger than that of a sulfide ion,
wherein the solid-state battery (10) comprises a cathode layer (1), an anode layer (2), and a solid electrolyte layer (3) formed between the cathode layer (1) and the anode layer (2), in which at least the cathode layer (1) contains the sulfide solid electrolyte according to claim 1 (see paragraphs [0032] and [0033]; and Figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (US 2022/0037659).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, although Nishimura et al. disclose the features of independent claim 1 above, Nishimura et al. do not explicitly disclose that the sulfide solid electrolyte does not contain P in a portion of the embodiments where element X is at least one of P, As, Sb, Si, Ge, Sn, B, Al, Ga, and In (see paragraph [0033]). In other words, Nishimura et al. fail to disclose that the sulfide solid electrolyte does not contain P, and further fail to teach that if P exists in at least one embodiment, then P would be present at 50 mol% or less. However, since paragraph [0033] of Nishimura et al. discloses one embodiment of using P with respect to a total of Ge, Sb, and P, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a composition having a little or no amount of P that would produce higher quality for manufacture of a solid-state battery based on experimentation of the percentages among element X to be one or more of P, As, Sb, Si, Ge, Sn, B, Al, Ga, and In (see paragraph [0033]). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claims 4-6, Nishimura et al. disclose the features of independent claim 1 above, including disclosure of an anion with an ionic radius larger than that of a sulfide ion, such as a polyatomic anion of PS43- or GeS44- that has S (see paragraph [0034]), but fail to explicitly teach that the polyatomic anion includes a cation of C, S, or N, and wherein the anion is at least one a carbonate ion or a sulfate ion. However, since Nishimura et al. disclose both the polyatomic anion and the cation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a suitable equivalent material in order to produce the most effective solid-state battery based on experimentation within a group of different elements of the periodic table, wherein selection of different elements would have been obvious to try by choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of optimization of effectiveness of the solid-state battery. With regard to the types of materials that are suitable for use, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach or suggest a sulfide solid electrolyte that includes all features of independent claim 1, and further includes the following composition:
Claim 8
a composition represented by the following:
(2-a-b)Li2S-aLiI-bLiαA-Li4(Ge,Sb)S4; and
the “a” satisfies 0 < a < 2,
the “b” satisfies 0 < b < 2,
the “a” and the “b” satisfy 0 < a + b < 2, and
the “α” is a value corresponding to a valence of the A.
(of dependent claim 8, from which claims 9-11 further depend)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al. (US 2021/0143412) and Lee et al. (US 2022/0069420) are also cited in PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 May 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights