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 .
Response to Amendment
Upon consideration, the previous rejection of record was withdrawn in light of new amendments. However new rejection is applied to the amended claims. All changes made in the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015-179649 A hereinafter Chiga in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0097854 hereinafter Kato.
Regarding Claim 1, Chiga teaches a method of producing a crystallized sulfide-based solid electrolyte comprising: mixing raw materials that include lithium, sulfur, phosphorous, halogen, and solvent (i.e., aprotic polar organic compound [amide compound] as the complexing agent) to form an electrolyte precursor; removing the solvent (complexing agent) form the electrolyte precursor to form a solid electrolyte; and heat-treating the solid electrolyte to form a crystalline solid electrolyte (paragraphs 9, 11-38 [see Step A and Step B]).
Chiga further teaches that the crystalline solid electrolyte undergoes a mechanical treatment (paragraph 38) but does not specifically disclose pulverizing the formed crystalline solid electrolyte with an integrated energy amount of 10 Wh/kg or more and less than 500 Wh/kg.
However, Kato teaches a method for producing a sulfide solid electrolyte comprising heat treating a raw material composition; forming a crystallized sulfide solid electrolyte material; and mechanical milling (pulverizing) the crystallized sulfide solid electrolyte (paragraphs 49, 54-57). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pulverize the obtained crystalline solid electrolyte before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Kato discloses that such configuration can lower the crystallinity of the crystallized sulfide solid electrolyte material, grain boundary resistivity of a crystal can be reduced, and Li ion conductivity can be increased (paragraph 54).
As evidence by JP2021-082409A [cited in previous Office Action], mechanical treatment of the solid electrolyte with a crushing energy of up to 50 kJ.sec/g is used to reduce average particle size (see preparation step S2 and total crushing energy is equivalent to the claimed integrated energy, paragraphs 20, 28).
The use of a known technique (i.e., forming a crystalline solid electrolyte and then pulverizing the crystalline solid electrolyte to reduce crystallinity and grain boundary resistivity) to improve similar methods (products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _,_, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claims 2-5, the combination teaches that the mechanical treatment method (i.e., pulverizing step) is not limited and includes various techniques (paragraphs 56-57 of Kato). The combination further teaches a mechanical treatment method using a solvent (oxygen atom-containing compound and hydrocarbon compound in a 1:1 mixing ratio) (paragraph 48 of Chiga).
Regarding Claims 6-9, the combination teaches that the complexing agent (amide compound) is removed from the mixture by a drying step and heating the pulverized crystalline solid electrolyte (see Chiga and Kato above).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination teaches a method wherein the average particle size (D50) of the solid electrolyte material is less than 3 µm (paragraph 34 of Chiga).
Claim(s) 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015-179649 A hereinafter Chiga in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0097854 hereinafter Kato, and further in view of WO 2020/105737 A1 [English equivalent US 2021/0249685] hereinafter Shibata and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0295260 hereinafter Sugiura.
The combination of Chiga and Kato is incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 12, The combination teaches a sulfide solid electrolyte comprising: a lithium source, a sulfur source, a phosphorous source, and a halogen source. The average particle size (D50) of the solid electrolyte material is 10 µm or less but does not specifically disclose that the sulfide solid electrolyte includes a complexing agent with the raw material in an amount of 0.01 to 1% by mass.
However, Shibata teaches a solid electrolyte comprising raw material that includes a lithium element, a sulfur element, a phosphorous element, a halogen element, and a complexing agent (see Embodiment A [figure 1], paragraph 37). Shibata further teaches that the content of the raw material is up to 500 g relative to one liter of the complexing agent (paragraph 70). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a complexing agent in the raw material mixture before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Shibata discloses that such modification can promote the formation of the electrolyte precursor, suppress the generation of hydrogen sulfide, and form a solid electrolyte having high ionic conductivity (paragraphs 52-57, 67).
In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In.re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, it would have been well within the purview of a skilled artisan to modify the amount of the complexing agent such that the raw material inclusion is readily mixed, the dispersing state of the raw materials is enhanced, and the reaction among the raw materials is promoted, and therefore, the electrolyte precursor and further the solid electrolyte are readily efficiently obtained (paragraph 70 of Shibata).
The combination does not specifically disclose that a particle diameter (D10) of a cumulative volume of 10% is 0.05 µm or more and less than 0.15 µm.
However, Sugiura teaches a sulfide solid electrolyte that comprises a lithium element, a sulfur element, a phosphorous element, and a halogen element (paragraphs 34-35), wherein the solid electrolyte material has a particle diameter (D10) of 0.6 (see Table 1, Example 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a sulfide solid electrolyte material with such mechanical treatment method before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Sigiura discloses that such modification can form a solid electrolyte material having a small particle diameter and good productivity (paragraphs 8-9).
Regarding Claims 11 and 13, the combination teaches a sulfide solid electrolyte and a method for producing the solid electrolyte, wherein the particle diameter (D90) of the solid electrolyte material is 2.4 µm (see Table 1, Example 1). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In.re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination teaches that the specific surface area of the solid electrolyte material is 11 m2/g . In addition, MPEP§ 2112.01 teaches that when the structure or composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, or are produced by substantially identical method, claimed properties or functions (i.e., specific surface area) are presumed to be expected. Because the recited composition and method of producing the sulfide solid electrolyte as described above is substantially identical to that of the claims, then the specific surface is expected to be the same.
Regarding Claims 15-17, the combination teaches that the content of the raw material is up to 500 g relative to one liter of the complexing agent (paragraph 70 of Shibata). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such amount of complexing agent in the raw material mixture before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Shibata discloses that such modification can promote the formation of the electrolyte precursor, suppress the generation of hydrogen sulfide, and form a solid electrolyte having high ionic conductivity (paragraphs 52-57, 67).
In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In.re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, it would have been well within the purview of a skilled artisan to modify the amount of the complexing agent such that the raw material inclusion is readily mixed, the dispersing state of the raw materials is enhanced, and the reaction among the raw materials is promoted, and therefore, the electrolyte precursor and further the solid electrolyte are readily efficiently obtained (paragraph 70 of Shibata).
The combination further teaches that the complexing agent is a nitrogen atom-containing compound having a tertiary amino group (paragraphs 52-54 of Shibata).
Regarding Claims 18-19, the combination teaches a sulfide solid electrolyte mixture and method for producing the sulfide solid electrolyte mixture, wherein sulfide solid electrolyte material having different compositions and average particle diameters are mixed (see Embodiment B of Shibata, paragraphs 128-132). The combination further teaches a method wherein the average particle size (D50) of the solid electrolyte material is 10 µm or less (see preparation step S1 of Miyamoto).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination teaches mechanical milling as described 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 OSEI K AMPONSAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at (571)272-8760. 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.
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights