DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-4 and 10-15 are currently pending. Claims 5-9 are cancelled. The amended claims do overcome the previously stated 103 rejections. However, upon further consideration, claims 1-4 and 10-15 are rejected under the following new 103 rejections. This action is made FINAL as necessitated by the amendment.
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, 2, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otomo et al (JP 2013037897 A) in view of Chikato (JP 2016203087 A, cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 1 and 13-14, Otomo et al discloses a method of producing a sulfide solid electrolyte material comprising:
mixing a raw material composition containing Li2S and P2S5 (lithium atom, a sulfur atom, a phosphorus atom) to provide a reaction product, which is an amorphous sulfide solid electrolyte;
heating the reaction product in a heat treatment to obtain a crystalline ion-conducting material (crystalline product);
subjecting the crystalline ion-conducting material to a grinding treatment to obtain an amorphous ion-conducting material to amorphize at least a part of a surface of the crystalline ion-conducting material, wherein the amorphous ion-conducting material does not need to be completely amorphous which corresponds to a crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte having at least partial surface thereof amorphized;
wherein the heat treatment is performed at a crystallization temperature of 300°C;
wherein the grinding treatment treating the crystalline product is performed using a ball mill ([0023],[0040],[0042]).
However, Otomo et al does not expressly teach a grinding treatment performed at an integrated power of 1 (Wh/kg) or more and 500 (Wh/kg) or less (claim 1).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Otomo method of producing sulfide solid electrolyte material to include a grinding treatment performed at an integrated power of 1 (Wh/kg) or more and 500 (Wh/kg) or less because it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The integrated power of the grinding treatment is a result effective variable of adjusting the amorphizing conditions such as rotation speed and processing time to obtain the desired ion-conducting material ([0040]). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454. 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed integrated power of the grinding treatment.
However, Otomo et al does not expressly teach a raw material-containing substance containing a halogen atom (claim 1).
Chikato discloses a raw material-containing substance wherein at least a portion of LiI, LiBr, and LiCl are generally present in state incorporated in the structure of the ionic conductor ([0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Otomo method of producing sulfide solid electrolyte material to include a raw material-containing substance containing a halogen atom such as LiI, LiBr, and LiCl in order to provide high Li-ion conductivity ([0025]).
Regarding claims 2 and 10-12, Chikato also discloses a coarse-grained material (raw material-containing substance) that is atomized (mixed) in a dispersion medium (solvent), wherein the atomizing (mixing) is performed using a pulverizing device (grinder) such as bead mill or ball mill (container-driven grinder) ([0031],[0035]).
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “a reduction rate in an oxidation current as measured by a cyclic voltammetry measurement of 10% or more, the reduction rate being calculated by the following expression: reduction rate in oxidation current (%) =(oxidation current 2 - oxidation current 1)/oxidation current 2 x 100 where oxidation current 1 is oxidation current of the crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte having at least partial surface thereof amorphized that is obtained after the grinding treatment, and oxidation current 2 is oxidation current of the crystalline product that is obtained after the heat treatment and before the grinding treatment” is an inherent characteristic of the Otomo/Chikato crystalline solid sulfide electrolyte because Otomo as modified by Chikato teaches the same method of producing a crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte that obtains a crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte having at least partial surface thereof amorphized as the present invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otomo et al in view of Chikato as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shibata et al (US 2021/0242496).
However, Otomo et al as modified by Chikato does not expressly teach mixing the raw material-containing substance in the presence of a complexing agent to provide a complex; and heating the complex to provide a complex degradation product as a reaction product (claim 3).
Shibata et al discloses a complexing agent that preferably has at least two hetero elements capable of being coordinated (bound) therewith in the molecule, and more preferably has at least two hetero element-containing groups in the molecule, wherein raw material and complexing agent are mixed to provide a complex, and heating the complex to provide a reaction product. In view of the fact that the complexing agent has at least two hetero element-containing groups in the molecule, the lithium-containing structure, such as Li3PS4 containing a PS4 structure, and the lithium-containing raw material, such as a lithium halide, can be bound with each other via the at least two hetero elements in the molecule, the halogen element is more likely dispersed and fixed in the electrolyte precursor. As a result, a solid electrolyte having not only predetermined average particle diameter and specific surface area but also a high ionic conductivity, in which the generation of hydrogen sulfide is suppressed, is obtained. In addition, among the hetero elements, a nitrogen element is preferred, and an amino group is preferred as the group containing a nitrogen element, namely the complexing agent is preferably an amine compound ([0066],[0080],[0087]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Otomo/Chikato method of producing a sulfide solid electrolyte material to include mixing the raw material-containing substance in the presence of a complexing agent to provide a complex; and heating the complex to provide a reaction product in order to bound the raw materials to each other such that the halogen element is more likely dispersed and fixed in the electrolyte precursor, thereby providing high ionic conductivity and suppressing the generation of hydrogen sulfide ([0066]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otomo et al in view of Chikato as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamada et al (US 2021/0284534).
However, Otomo et al as modified by Chikato does not expressly teach a crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte that is a sulfide solid electrolyte that has a thio-LISICON Region II-type crystal structure (claim 4).
Yamada et al discloses a sulfide solid electrolyte that has a crystal structure similar to a thio-LISICON Region II type crystal structure ([0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Otomo/Chikato method of producing a sulfide solid electrolyte material to include a crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte that is a sulfide solid electrolyte that has a thio-LISICON Region II-type crystal structure because the substitution of one known type of sulfide solid electrolyte for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. There is no evidence of criticality of the crystal structure type of the sulfide solid electrolyte.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 10-15 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Minami (US 2020/0235422) discloses a sulfide solid electrolyte that may be amorphous or may include a crystal structure in at least a part thereof ([0041]), wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte have sufficient ion conductivity and is configured to suppress a resistance increase rate after charge-discharge cycle ([0012]).
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 TONY S CHUO whose telephone number is (571)272-0717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
/T.S.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 6/30/2026
Prosecution Insights