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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Totsuka et al. (WO-2021029315-A1), hereinafter Totsuka, as cited in the IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Totsuka teaches a method for producing a sulfide solid electrolyte, comprising mixing a raw material inclusion containing a lithium atom ([0040] Li2S), a sulfur atom ([0040]-[0041] Li2S and P2S5), a phosphorus atom ([0040]-[0041] P2S5), and a halogen atom ([0040]-[0041] LiBr and LiCl) to obtain an electrolyte precursor, and heating the electrolyte precursor in the presence of a solvent containing a dispersant having a linear or branched hydrocarbon group having 8 or more carbon atoms in a sealed pressure resistant vessel ([0047] toluene; [0046] surfactant is di(2-ethylhexyl) sulfosuccinate salt in isopropyl alcohol; under a nitrogen atmosphere and vacuum dried, so pressure resistant vessel, vacuum dried at 100°C, meaning heating; [0010] sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate; [0014]-[0015] solvents can include non-polar solvents such as hydrocarbon solvents).
Regarding claim 2, Totsuka teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Totsuka also teaches that wherein the dispersant has a boiling point of 170°C or higher ([0010] sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate inherently has a boiling point of 170°C or higher, as evidenced by the instant specification citing a boiling point of 444°C on pg. 27, paragraph 2; example 4; example 1).
Regarding claim 3, Totsuka teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Totsuka also teaches that wherein the dispersant is one or more selected from an anionic dispersant having a linear or branched hydrocarbon group having 8 to 30 carbon atoms, a cationic dispersant having a linear or branched hydrocarbon group having 8 to 30 carbon atoms, and a nonionic dispersant having a linear or branched hydrocarbon group having 8 to 30 carbon atoms ([0046]; (di(2-ethylhexyl) sulfosuccinate salt; sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate).
Regarding claim 4, Totsuka teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Totsuka also teaches wherein the dispersant is a sulfonate ([0046]; (di(2-ethylhexyl) sulfosuccinate salt; sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate).
Regarding claim 8, Totsuka teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Totsuka also teaches wherein the raw material inclusion contains at least chlorine as the halogen atom ([0040]-[0041] LiCl).
Regarding claim 10, Totsuka teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Totsuka also teaches wherein the solvent further contains one or more selected from an aromatic hydrocarbon solvent and an ether-based solvent ([0047] toluene (aromatic hydrocarbon)).
Regarding claim 11, Totsuka teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Totsuka also teaches wherein, when the heating is carried out, the dispersant has an amount of 0.1 to 20% by mass with respect to an amount of the electrolyte precursor ([0047] 0.005 g of the surfactant; 1 g of argyrodite-type solid electrolyte; effectively 0.005/1 * 100 = 0.5% by mass).
Regarding claim 12, Totsuka teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Totsuka also teaches wherein, when the heating is carried out, a ratio of an amount of the electrolyte precursor to a total amount of the electrolyte precursor and the solvent is 0.50 to 50% by mass ([0047] 1 g of electrolyte precursor; 0.005 g dispersant; 10 mL of toluene; toluene is known to have a density at 25 °C of around 865 mg/mL; as such, 10 mL of toluene is equivalent to about 8.65 g; ((1g)/(0.005g + 8.65g + 1g)) * 100 = 10.4% by mass).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Totsuka, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Sigma Aldrich; 1,2,3,4-Tetrahydronaphthalene.”
Regarding claim 9, Totsuka teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. ‘Totsuka also teaches wherein the solvent has a boiling point of 190°C or higher ([0015] solvent options include 1,2,3,4-tetrahydronaphthalene, which inherently has a boiling point of greater than 190°C as evidenced by Sigma Aldrich; 1,2,3,4-Tetrahydronaphthalene, which shows a boiling point of 207 °C).
Alternatively, claims 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Totsuka et al. (WO-2021054412-A1), hereinafter ‘412, as cited in the IDS, in view of Totsuka et al. (WO-2021029315-A1), hereinafter Totsuka, as cited in the IDS.
Regarding claim 1, ‘412 teaches a method for producing a sulfide solid electrolyte ([0001]; [0003]), comprising mixing a raw material inclusion containing a lithium atom, a sulfur atom, a phosphorus atom, and a halogen atom to obtain an electrolyte precursor ([0012]), and heating the electrolyte precursor in the presence of a solvent ([0012]) in a sealed pressure resistant vessel ([0066] autoclave).
‘412 fails to teach the solvent containing a dispersant having a linear or branched hydrocarbon group having 8 or more carbon atoms.
Totsuka is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of solid sulfide electrolytes. Totsuka teaches the solvent containing a dispersant having a linear or branched hydrocarbon group having 8 or more carbon atoms ([0010] sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate as an example).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘412 and provide a dispersant having a linear or branched hydrocarbon group having 8 or more carbon atoms such as in Totsuka. Doing so lowers the amount of solvent needed allowing for an increase in the solids content of the slurry, improving battery performance (Totsuka [0023].
Regarding claim 2, modified ‘412 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified ‘412 also teaches that wherein the dispersant has a boiling point of 170°C or higher (Totsuka [0010]; [0055] sodium dodecylbenzene inherently has a boiling point of 170°C or higher, as evidenced by the instant specification citing a boiling point of 444°C on pg. 27, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 3, modified ‘412 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified ‘412 also teaches that wherein the dispersant is one or more selected from an anionic dispersant having a linear or branched hydrocarbon group having 8 to 30 carbon atoms, a cationic dispersant having a linear or branched hydrocarbon group having 8 to 30 carbon atoms, and a nonionic dispersant having a linear or branched hydrocarbon group having 8 to 30 carbon atoms (Totsuka [0010]; [0055] sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate).
Regarding claim 4, modified ‘412 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified ‘412 also teaches wherein the dispersant is a sulfonate (Totsuka [0010]; [0055] sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate).
Regarding claim 5, modified ‘412 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. ‘412 also teaches wherein the temperature when heating the electrolyte precursor is 250°C or higher and 500°C or lower ([0067] 200°C to 425°C). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, modified ‘412 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. ‘412 also teaches wherein the pressure resistant vessel is an autoclave apparatus ([0066] autoclave).
Regarding claim 8, modified ‘412 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. ‘412 also teaches wherein the raw material inclusion contains at least chlorine as the halogen atom ([0022] preferably chlorine).
Regarding claim 9, modified ‘412 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. ‘412 also teaches wherein the solvent has a boiling point of 190°C or higher ([0071]; [0080] isoparaffin-based solvent with high boiling point that is heated to 340°C with no indication of boiling; it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that the isoparaffin based solvent would have a boiling point of 190°C or higher given that it is heated to 340°C).
Regarding claim 10, modified ‘412 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. ‘412 also teaches wherein the solvent further contains one or more selected from an aromatic hydrocarbon solvent and an ether-based solvent ([0030] aromatic hydrocarbon solvents, ether based solvents; [0044] heating with the hydrocarbon and/or ether based solvents; [0061] aromatic hydrocarbon solvents and ether solvents).
Regarding claim 11, modified ‘412 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. ### also teaches wherein, when the heating is carried out, the dispersant has an amount of 0.1 to 20% by mass with respect to an amount of the electrolyte precursor(Totsuka [0047] 1 g of electrolyte precursor; 0.005 g dispersant; 10 mL of toluene; toluene is known to have a density at 25 °C of around 865 mg/mL; as such, 10 mL of toluene is equivalent to about 8.65 g; ((1g)/(0.005g + 8.65g + 1g)) * 100 = 10.4% by mass; [0055] example 4 is the same as example 1 except it uses sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate). Alternatively, Totsuka teaches that surfactant should be present in an amount of 0.01 to 5.0 mg/m2 per specific surface area of the sulfide solid electrolyte (Totsuka [0027]), and that the concentration of the surfactant is 0.1 to 10 g/L volume of the solvent (Totsuka [0022]). It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the mass amount of the dispersant with respect to the amount of the electrolyte precursor within the above ranges of Totsuka such that the dispersant has an amount of 0.1 to 20% by mass with respect to an amount of the electrolyte precursor. Doing so suppresses the generation of hydrogen sulfide from the sulfide solid electrolyte (Totsuka [0027], improves water resistance of the sulfide solid electrolyte (Totsuka [0026]), and allows for a high solid content of the slurry for improving battery performance (Totsuka [0023]).
Regarding claim 12, modified ‘412 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. ‘412 also teaches wherein, when the heating is carried out, a ratio of an amount of the electrolyte precursor to a total amount of the electrolyte precursor and the solvent is 0.50 to 50% by mass ([0061] use amount of the solvent relative to the solid electrolyte raw material is the same as the use amount of the complexing agent; [0032] complexing agent relative to solid electrolyte raw material is 1 to 50% by mass). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘412 in view of Totsuka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shin et al. (US-20240213524-A1), hereinafter Shin.
Regarding claim 6, modified ‘412 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. ‘412 fails to teach wherein, when heating the electrolyte precursor, the pressure resistant vessel has an internal pressure of 0.35 MPa or more and 2.0 MPa or less.
Shin is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of methods for preparing solid sulfide electrolytes ([0002]). Shin teaches that when heating the electrolyte precursor, the pressure resistant vessel has an internal pressure of 0.35 MPa or more and 2.0 MPa or less ([0039] synthesis pressure of 1 to 5 bars, which is equivalent to 0.1 to 0.5 MPa).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified ‘412 such that, when heating the electrolyte precursor, the pressure resistant vessel has an internal pressure of 0.35 MPa or more and 2.0 MPa or less. Doing so allows for enough energy to synthesize the solid electrolyte while maintaining safety and processing efficiency (Shin [0039]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US-20200220208-A1 teaches a sulfide solid electrolyte produced by mixing or reacting raw materials of lithium, phosphorous, sulfur, and, optionally, a halogen ([0050]) and then heat treating at 350 to 480 °C ([0085]);
US-20210126253-A1 teaches a slurry including a sulfide solid electrolyte and a solvent, wherein the solvent includes a first solvent and a second solvent (Abstract), and wherein the second solvent can include an anion based surfactant and a non-ion based surfactant ([0057]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722