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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1, claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 12/23/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no adequate reasons and/or examples have been provided to support a conclusion of patentable distinctness between the identified groups. The Examiner has not shown that the process as claimed is not an obvious process of making the crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte and can be used to make another materially different product. Further, there is no evidence of record that the claimed crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte can be made by the process the Examiner has alleged. This is not found persuasive because the crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte can be made by a process that does not require subjecting the crystalline product to a grinding treatment at an integrated power of 1 (Wh/kg) or more and 500 (Wh/kg) or less such as other methods of amorphizing crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte known in the art. In addition, the method of producing a crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte can be used to make a materially different product that does not require a reduction rate in an oxidation current as measured by cyclic voltammetry measurement of 10% or more. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 5-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/8/23 was filed on 6/8/23. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 11/9/23 are accepted by the examiner.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al (JP 2018199586 A, machine translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Tanaka et al discloses a method of producing a sulfide solid electrolyte comprising:
mixing a raw material-containing substance containing Li2S+P2S5 (lithium atom, a sulfur atom, a phosphorus atom), and LiI or LiBr (halogen atom) to provide a reaction product, wherein in the providing a reaction product, the mixing is performed using a grinder;
subjecting the reaction product to a grinding treatment performed in an amorphization step at a power consumption of 0.7 kWh corresponding to an integrated power of 7 kWh/kg to amorphize at least a part of a surface of the reaction product;
heating the reaction product in a crystallization step to provide a crystalline product ([0014]-[0017],[0035],[0036],[0039]).
However, Tanaka 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 Tanaka method of producing sulfide solid electrolyte 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 efficiently amorphizing the reaction product, thereby reducing the amount of power consumption required ([0047]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimized the ionic conductivity of the sulfide solid electrolyte by optimizing the heating conditions of the crystallization step and reducing the amount of power consumption of the amorphization step. 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, Tanaka et al does not expressly teach a step of subjecting the crystalline product to a grinding treatment to amorphize at least a part of a surface of the crystalline product.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Tanaka method of producing sulfide solid electrolyte to include a step of subjecting the crystalline product to a grinding treatment to amorphize at least a part of a surface of the crystalline product because the transposition of process steps, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner, and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes (Ex parte Rubin 128 USPQ 159 (PO BdPatApp 1959). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed order of the crystallization step and amorphization step of the reaction product because the resulting final product is the same.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chikato (JP 2016203087 A, cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Chikato discloses a method of producing a sulfide solid electrolyte comprising:
mixing a raw material-containing substance containing Li2S+P2S5 (lithium atom, a sulfur atom, a phosphorus atom), and LiI, LiBr, LiCl (halogen atom) to provide a reaction product, wherein in the providing a reaction product, the mixing is performed using a pulverizing device (grinder);
subjecting the reaction product to a grinding treatment performed in an amorphization step at a total grinding energy (power consumption) of 4.5 kJ-sec/g corresponding to a total grinding energy of 1250 Wh/kg to amorphize at least a part of a surface of the reaction product;
heating the reaction product in a crystallization step to provide a crystalline product ([0021]-[0025],[0029],[0035],[0038],[0040]).
However, Chikato 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 Chikato method of producing sulfide solid electrolyte 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 to obtain the desired sulfide solid electrolyte material ([0035]). 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, Chikato does not expressly teach a step of subjecting the crystalline product to a grinding treatment to amorphize at least a part of a surface of the crystalline product.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Chikato method of producing sulfide solid electrolyte to include a step of subjecting the crystalline product to a grinding treatment to amorphize at least a part of a surface of the crystalline product because the transposition of process steps, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner, and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes (Ex parte Rubin 128 USPQ 159 (PO BdPatApp 1959). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed order of the crystallization step and amorphization step of the reaction product because the resulting final product is the same.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al (JP 2018199586 A, machine translation) in view of Shibata et al (US 2021/0242496). The Tanaka reference is applied to claim 1 for reasons stated above.
However, Tanaka et al does not expressly teach mixing the raw material-containing substance in the presence of a complexing agent to provide a complex (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. 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]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Tanaka method of producing a sulfide solid electrolyte to include mixing the raw material-containing substance in the presence of a complexing agent to provide a complex 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 Tanaka et al (JP 2018199586 A, machine translation) in view of Yamada et al (US 2021/0284534). The Tanaka reference is applied to claim 1 for reasons stated above.
However, Tanaka et al 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 Tanaka method of producing a sulfide solid electrolyte 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chikato (JP 2016203087 A) in view of Shibata et al (US 2021/0242496). The Chikato reference is applied to claim 1 for reasons stated above.
However, Chikato does not expressly teach mixing the raw material-containing substance in the presence of a complexing agent to provide a complex (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. 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]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Chikato method of producing a sulfide solid electrolyte to include mixing the raw material-containing substance in the presence of a complexing agent to provide a complex 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 Chikato (JP 2016203087 A) in view of Yamada et al (US 2021/0284534). The Chikato reference is applied to claim 1 for reasons stated above.
However, 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 Chikato method of producing a sulfide solid electrolyte 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.
Conclusion
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 2/12/2026