DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6 August 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) of claims 1, 4 and 6-11 over Senga, and of claims 1, 4, 6-8 and 11 over Sato. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in light of the amendment have been fully considered but are moot as they do not apply to the current rejection.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8 and 11 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Senga.
Regarding claims 1, 6-8 and 11, Sato teaches a method of producing a sulfide-based solid electrolyte comprises mixing and reacting raw source materials under heating in a reaction vessel to synthesize a sulfide solid electrolyte and pulverizing the product in a mixed solvent of a hydrocarbon solvent and a polar aprotic solvent ([0015], [0019] and [0062]- [0067]), which meets the limitation of atomizing in light of the instant disclosure wherein “atomization” means to reduce the average particle size including using pulverization (instant disclosure, [0022] and [0065]-[0067]).
Sato teaches that the raw source material comprises lithium sulfide, phosphorous sulfide and a halogen compound ([0041], [0052] and [0056]), which meets the claimed raw material source.
Sato teaches the polar aprotic solvent includes methyl ethyl ketone ([0032] and [0038]), which has a boiling point of about 79.6°C and molecular weight of 72, which meets the claimed ketone of formula (I) wherein R1 is methyl and R2 is ethyl, boiling point, total number of carbon and molecular weight, respectively.
Sato does not teaches the claimed particle size of the product sulfide solid electrolyte.
Senga teaches that as a battery material, the volume average particle size of sulfide solid electrolyte is preferably 0.1 μm or more and 20 μm or less, exemplified as 9 μm ([0061] and [0108]), which meets the claimed particle size.
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to pulverizing the sulfide solid electrolyte of Sato to a size range of 0.1 μm or more and 20 μm such as 9 μm of Senga. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teachings of Senga that such size range of the solid electrolyte is suitable as battery material ([0061]).
Regarding claim 4, Sato teaches drying the product and removing the solvent thus the ketone compound([0077]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Senga as applied to claims 1, 4, 6-8 and 11 above , and further in view of US2020/0358132A1(Yamada)
The combined teachings of Sato and Senga are set forth above.
Sato exemplified a sulfide solid electrolyte prepared from 33.2 g of lithium sulfide (i.e., 0.72 mol), 53.2 g of phosphorous pentasulfide (i.e., 0.12 mol), and 14.1 g of LiBr,( i.e., 0.16 mol) ([0117], Example 8), thus the molar ratio of Li/P is 6, S/P is 5.5, and Br/P is 0.66 estimated by the examiner.
Sato further teaches the ionic conductivity can increase by subjecting the resultant sulfide-based solid electrolyte to a heat treatment to make the sulfide-based solid electrolyte from a glass substance to a sulfide crystalized glass ([0078]), wherein the heat treatment is normally at a temperature of 200° C. or higher and 320° C. or lower ([0078]).
Sato is silent on the claimed argyrodite type crystal structure.
Yamada teaches amorphous sulfide solid electrolyte can be changed to an crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte by heating at a temperature of 190° C. or higher and 300° C. or lower ([0100]-[0102]), and a halogen element-containing argyrodite-type crystal structure can be obtained by reacting starting materials in a predetermined blending ratio, wherein the molar amount of lithium element/phosphorus element is 2.5 or more and 6.0 or less, sulfur element/phosphorus element is 4.0 or more and 6.0 or less, halogen element/phosphorus element is 0.5 or more and 2.0 or less ([0041], [0070]-[0072] and [0100]-[0102]).
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to expect that the Sato’s crystal glass has argyrodite-type crystal structure since Sato teaches the same blending ratios of Li/P, S/P and Br/P and similar heating treatment as that of Yamada ([0041], [0070]-[0072] and [0100]-[0102]), therefore same product as that of Yamada.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIQUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-7736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am -4:00 pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-2721302. 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.
/AIQUN LI/ Ph.D., Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights