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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/28/26 has been entered.
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 .
Examiner’s Comments
The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the references as applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 recites “the atmosphere” in line 5. It is unclear to the examiner if it is referring to the inert atmosphere or the sulfur-containing atmosphere. It is suggested to the applicant to amend the claim as “the sulfur-containing atmosphere the gaseous elemental sulfur”
Further, claim 3 recites “further comprising recovering a sulfur-element containing component that vaporizes from the starting material... wherein a gas from the sulfur-element containing component is included in the atmosphere comprising gaseous elemental sulfur”. The examiner is unclear the difference from “gaseous elemental sulfur” in the intermediate stage and gas derived from the sulfur-element-containing component that is used in the intermediate stage. Clarification is needed. It appears that claim 3 is not further limiting as the gaseous elemental sulfur is from the heat-treatment of the starting material.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagakane et al. (JP 2012-043654) in view of Ito et al. (US 2021/0020984).
Regarding claim 1, Nagakane discloses a manufacturing method of a sulfide solid electrolyte (Abstract) comprising heat-treating at a temperature of 150-600°C a starting material comprising a lithium element, a sulfur element, and a phosphorous element to obtain an intermediate ([0023-0024], [0044]), heating and melting the intermediate in an atmosphere of a gas into the intermediate which has been melted and is in a liquid-phase state ([0032-0037, 0045]: molten would inherently be in a liquid-phase state), and cooling the intermediate which has been melted to obtain the sulfide solid electrolyte [0036-0037].
Nagakane is silent on the environment of the heat-treatment of the starting material. However, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose to use an inert atmosphere. One of ordinary skill in the art would be well aware that the atmosphere is either inert (nonreactive) or reactive atmosphere. Thus, choice of an inert atmosphere given only two alternatives would be well within the level of ordinary skill in the art, especially since Nagakane discloses that it prefers that the heat-treated starting material to be nonvolatile, which is nonreactive [0030].
Nagakane discloses that heating and melting the intermediate is in inert atmosphere, thereby fails to explicitly the claimed sulfur-containing atmosphere as presently claimed.
Ito discloses a manufacturing method of a sulfide solid electrolyte comprising a multiple-stage firing [0088] that can be conducted in inert gas or hydrogen sulfide gas [0088]. Ito discloses that the starting material comprising elemental sulfur, which is similarly to Nagakane, [0058-0059]. Ito discloses that elemental sulfur gas is generated during firing [0059]. Thereby, Ito discloses that elemental sulfur gas is present during the multistage firing step and would read upon the claimed sulfur-containing atmosphere.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nagakane’s atmosphere to include a sulfur-containing atmosphere comprising gaseous elemental sulfur during the heating stage of the intermediate, as Ito discloses that it is known in the art that sulfur gas is generate during firing when the starting material comprises a sulfur element and in order to obtain a solid electrolyte with an improve ion conductivity [0059].
Regarding claim 3, Nagakane in view of Ito discloses heat-treating the starting material comprises of a sulfur element as set forth above, which would include trace amount of sulfur content as vaporizers. In light of Nagakane in view of Ito’s sulfur gas, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use trace amount of gas derived from the first process to also be used in the second process absent of evidence the criticality of the amount of the gas that vaporizes. Further, given that Ito discloses multiple-stage firing, the elemental sulfur gas would be from the starting material as well [0096-0097: excess elemental sulfur securely escaped out at the final stage].
Regarding claim 4, please see [0011-0012, 0024].
Regarding claim 5, please see [0026-0027, 0038].
Regarding claims 6-8, Nagakane fails to explicitly disclose the starting material comprising of halogen and the sulfide solid electrolyte is an argyrodite crystal structure as presently claimed.
Ito discloses lithium chloride, bromide, or iodide and the electrolyte is an argyrodite crystal structure (claim 2, [0021-0027], and [0066])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nagakane to have the materials and crystal structure as claimed, since Ito discloses that this would lead to a solid electrolyte with high ion conductivity [0017].
Regarding claims 9-11, Nagakane discloses cooling a melt obtained by the heating and melting in a rate of 1K/sec or more [0037], wherein the electrolyte has a crystalline phase and could be adjusted [0039].
Given that Nagakane discloses a sulfide solid electrolyte material and a method thereof disclosing that appropriate heating temperature gives sulfide solid electrode material with a desired crystallinity [0039], the crystal nucleus is a result effective variable.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention would have arrived at the claimed invention by routine experimentation alone, without exercising undue experimentation.
Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue known option within his or her technical grasp. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to optimize the starting crystal seed, since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed amount is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the rapid cooling a melt with a crystal nucleus of 0.01-1 mass% or less as a starting point in order to obtained a desired crystallinity of the sulfide solid electrolyte.
Regarding claim 12, Nagakane discloses post heat treatment [0046].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-12 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA N CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5835. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)272-1291. 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.
Linda Chau
/L.N.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights