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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 2 is canceled.
Claim 1, 3-11 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3-5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 20190173127 A1, “Jang”) in view of Kashima et al. (US 20200239656 A1, “Kashima”) and Chiga et al. (JP 2019169459 A, “Chiga”). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 1, Jang discloses a method for producing a sulfide solid electrolyte (see abstract “method of preparing a sulfide-based solid electrolyte”), the method comprising mixing a raw material-containing matter that contains a lithium atom, a phosphorus atom, and a sulfur atom with a first solvent to provide a precursor-containing mixture (see abstract “dissolving lithium sulfide, phosphorus sulfide and a halogen compound in a solvent, obtaining a precursor powder by removing the solvent from the precursor solution”; see [0050] “stirring”). Regarding the limitation subsequently mixing the precursor-containing mixture with a second solvent that is incompatible with the first solvent to provide an emulsion, Jang discloses in [0019] “solvent may suitably be selected form one or more of polar or non-polar solvents that may substantially suspend, dissolve or otherwise admix the above described components” which describes two solvents that are incompatible (polar & non-polar solvents). Jang discloses ethanol (see [0019]) which reads on a second solvent. Jang discloses removing the solvent (see [0020] “the solvent may be removed by drying after obtaining the precursor solution” & “to admix the components, more typically, as substantial portion of the solvent is removed”). Jang does not explicitly disclose subsequently mixing the precursor-containing mixture with a second solvent to provide an emulsion, nor and removing the first solvent and the second solvent from the emulsion.
Kashima teaches mini-emulsion & plural stages (see [0099] “mini-emulsion polymerization, micro-emulsion polymerization or the like) can be used” & describes “particle dispersion may be prepared by polymerizing a monomer component in the aqueous solvent”). Kashima teaches in [0100] “from the viewpoint of obtaining the pore diameter of the porous polyimide film according to the exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, the monomer is preferably added in plural stages”.
Jang and Kashima are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same filed of endeavor, namely sulfide solid electrolytes (see Kashima [0210]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate emulsion polymerization, as suggested by Kashima (see [0099]) into the method of Jang because doing so allows for particle dispersion, as suggested by Kashima (see [0099]) & further doing so allows for “obtaining the pore diameter of the porous polyimide film”, as suggested by Kashima (see [0100]).
Regarding the limitation removing the first solvent and the second solvent from the emulsion, Jang does not explicitly disclose.
Kashima teaches removing the particles from the dispersion with solvents (see [0060] & [0061]).
Chiga teaches recovering solid content & washing with toluene (see [0046] “separated solid was washed three times with toluene. After washing, the solid content was recovered by vacuum drying”).
Jang and Chiga are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely method for producing solid electrolyte (see Chiga title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate recovering solid content, as suggested by Chiga (see [0046]) & removing particles from the dispersion with solvents as suggested by Kashima (see [0060] & [0061]) into the method of Jang because doing washes the separated solid, as suggested by Chiga (see [0046]) and further doing so increases the dissolution efficiency of the particles, as suggested by Kashima (see [0060]).
Regarding the limitation wherein one of the first solvent and the second solvent contains an alcohol solvent, Jang discloses in [0019] “solvent may suitably be selected from one or more of polar or non-polar solvents that may substantially suspend, dissolve or otherwise admix the above described components” & “a solvent” includes one or more mixed solvents” which describes two solvents & [0019] describes “ethanol” which reads on an alcohol solvent.
Regarding the limitation and the other of the first solvent and the second solvent contains a hydrocarbon solvent having 5 to 40 carbon atoms, Jang does not explicitly disclose a hydrocarbon solvent having 5 to 40 carbon atoms.
Kashima teaches toluene (see [0061] & [0060]).
Chiga teaches toluene (see [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate toluene as suggested by Kashima (see [0061]) & Chiga (see [0046]) into the method of Jang & a skilled artisan would recognize toluene reads on a hydrocarbon solvent having 7 carbon atoms & doing so washes the separated solid, as suggested by Chiga (see [0046]) and further doing so increases the dissolution efficiency of the particles, as suggested by Kashima (see [0060]).
Regarding claim 3, Jang discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses and the second solvent contains an alcohol solvent (see [0019] “polar or non-polar solvents” & “ethanol” reads on alcohol solvent), but Jang does not explicitly disclose wherein the first solvent contains a hydrocarbon solvent having 5 to 40 carbon atoms.
Kashima teaches toluene (see [0061] & [0060]).
Chiga teaches toluene (see [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate toluene as suggested by Kashima (see [0061]) & Chiga (see [0046]) into the method of Jang & a skilled artisan would recognize toluene reads on a hydrocarbon solvent having 7 carbon atoms & doing so washes the separated solid, as suggested by Chiga (see [0046]) and further doing so increases the dissolution efficiency of the particles, as suggested by Kashima (see [0060]).
Regarding claim 4, Jang discloses the method for producing a sulfide sold electrolyte of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the first solvent and the second solvent are removed from the emulsion by removing one of the first solvent and the second solvent from the emulsion (see [0019] “solvent may suitably be selected from one or more of polar or non-polar solvents” & “admix the above described components”; see [0020] “to admix the components, more typically, as substantial portion of the solvent is removed”) containing the sulfide solid electrolyte, and removing the other of the first solvent and the second solvent (see abstract & [0019], [0020]).
Regarding the limitation of a slurry, the specification of the instant invention provides evidence that an emulsion (which reads on slurry) is formed based on the solvents (see [0017] “When the first solvent contains a hydrocarbon solvent, solid-electrolyte raw materials are firstly dispersed uniformly in the first solvent, and then, the dispersion is mixed with the second solvent containing an alcohol solvent to form an emulsion”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Jang which discloses a mixture with similar solvents (see Jang abstract & [0019] non-polar solvent reads on hydrocarbon solvent & “ethanol” reads on alcohol solvent) would form an emulsion (which reads on slurry), as evidenced by the specification of the instant invention (see [0017]).
Regarding claim 5, Jang discloses the method for producing a sulfide solid electrolyte of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the first solvent and the second solvent are removed from the emulsion by supplying the emulsion into a gas medium of a temperature higher than a boiling point of the first solvent and higher than a boiling point of the second solvent to vaporize the first solvent and the second solvent (see [0020] “solvent may be removed by drying” & “admix the components” & see [0021] “solvent may be removed by drying” & “vacuum atmosphere” which reads on gas medium & “temperature ranging from 25 °C to about 250 °C for about 5 hr to 15 hr” & see [0022] “fifth drying at a temperature ranging from about 200 °C to less than about 250 °C for about 1 hr to 3 hr”; see [0054] describes “removing the solvent by drying the precursor solution in a vacuum atmosphere at a temperature ranging from about 25 °C to about 250 °C” & describes “if the drying conditions are less than about 25 °C and/or less than about 5 hr, the solvent may not be sufficiently removed, and the reaction of the raw materials may become insufficient. On the other hand, if the drying conditions is greater than about 250 °C and/or about 15 hr, the raw materials, especially phosphorus sulfide, may degrade.”).
Chiga teaches liquid medium (see [0029] “medium for supplying the solid electrolyte raw material-containing liquid may be a liquid or gas that is stable even at temperatures higher than the boiling point of the above-mentioned solvent”; see [0031] “when a liquid is used as the medium, it is preferable that the liquid is filled in a container and used in an agitated state”. Chiga teaches in [0029] “a liquid in which the target argyrodite-type crystal structure is insoluble and which has a high boiling point can be suitably used. The crystalline structure being insoluble means that a part or all of the crystalline structure does not dissolve in a liquid and precipitates as a solid” & “The boiling point of the liquid is preferably 150°C or higher and 500°C or lower, more preferably 180°C or higher and 400°C or lower, because this allows the solvent injected into the medium to be easily volatilized and removed, and also prevents decomposition of the solvent and medium.”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate liquid medium as suggested by Chiga (see [0031]) into the method for producing a sulfide solid electrolyte of Jang because using a liquid that the crystal is insoluble and has a high boiling point “allows the solvent injected into the medium to be easily volatilized and removed”, as suggested by Chiga (see [0029]).
Regarding claim 7, Jang discloses the method for producing a sulfide solid electrolyte of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the raw material-containing matter further contains a halogen atom (see abstract “and a halogen compound” & see [0016] “halogen atoms such as F, Cl, Br, or I”).
Regarding claim 8, Jang discloses the method for producing a sulfide solid electrolyte according to claim 1 and further discloses after removing the first solvent and the second solvent from the emulsion (see [0020] “the solvent may be removed by drying after obtaining the precursor solution” & “to admix the components, more typically, as substantial portion of the solvent is removed”), subjecting the sulfide solid electrolyte to a heat treatment to crystallize the sulfide solid electrolyte (see [0022] “fifth drying at a temperature ranging from about 200 °C to less than about 250 °C for about 1 hr to 3 hr”; see [0026] “sulfide-based solid electrolyte may suitably include the argyrodite-type crystal structure” & see [0043] “obtaining a precursor powder by removing the solvent from the precursor solution (S2) and growing solid electrolyte crystals by thermally treating the precursor powder (S3)”).
Regarding claim 9, Jang discloses the method for producing a sulfide solid electrolyte of claim 1. Jang does not explicitly disclose wherein the first solvent and the second solvent are used at a ratio of 10:90 to 90:10 by mass.
Kashima teaches ratio of solvents (see [0129] “the aqueous solvent is a solvent containing 50% by mass or more of water relative to the total aqueous solvent” which describes 50:50 ratio of solvent by mass).
Kashima teaches a range of 50:50, which lies within the claimed range of 10:90 to 90:10. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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 10, Jang discloses the method for producing a sulfide solid electrolyte according to claim 1 and further discloses wherein the raw material-containing matter and the first solvent are used at a ratio of 1.0 g or more and 20.0 g or less of the raw material-containing matter relative to 100 ml of the first solvent (see abstract “dissolving lithium sulfide, phosphorus sulfide and a halogen compound in a solvent, obtaining a precursor powder by removing the solvent from the precursor solution”; see Example in [0063] “describes 4.28 g of lithium sulfide, 4.14 g of phosphorus pentasulfide, 1.57 g of a lithium chloride & describes 100 g of solvent).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that 100 g of solvent as disclosed by Jang can be converted to ml of solvent by using the density of the solvent.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 20190173127 A1, “Jang”) in view of Kashima et al. (US 20200239656 A1, “Kashima”) and Chiga et al. (JP 2019169459 A, “Chiga”, the machine translation is used herein for citation purposes) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shibata et al. (WO 2020105736 A1, “Shibata”) as an evidentiary reference & the English version is used herein for citation purposes (US 20210242496 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Jang discloses the method for producing a sulfide solid electrolyte of claim 1 and further discloses wherein a first solvent contains a complexing agent (see [0019] “ethanol”).
Shibata provides evidence ethanol is an example of a complexing agent (see [0079] “examples of other complexing agent include alcohol-based solvents, such as ethanol”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the “ethanol” disclosed by Jang (see [0019]) would act as a complexing agent, as evidenced by Shibata (see [0079]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 20190173127 A1, “Jang”) in view of Kashima et al. (US 20200239656 A1, “Kashima”) and Chiga et al. (JP 2019169459 A, “Chiga”, the machine translation is used herein for citation purposes) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito (WO 2020179523 A1, “Ito”, US 20220169509 A1 is used herein for citation purposes).
Regarding claim 11, Jang discloses the method for producing a sulfide solid electrolyte of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the precursor-containing mixture and the second solvent are mixed (see [0053] “stirring of the precursor solution at a high temperature”). Jang does not explicitly disclose a stirring power of 0.01 W/m3 or more.
Ito teaches stirring power (see [0040] “it is sufficient when stirring power that can enable suspension and dispersion of the slurry is provided”).
Jang and Ito are analogous to the current invention because they are both related to the same field of endeavor, namely “method for producing sulfide solid electrolyte” (see Ito title).
Chiga teaches a value for stirring (see [0042] “stirring at 200 rpm”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “stirring at 200 rpm”, as suggested by Chiga (see [0042]) & “it is sufficient when stirring power that can enable suspension and dispersion of the slurry is provided”, as suggested by Ito (see [0040]) into the method of Jang because a skilled artisan would recognize doing so would disperse the slurry and a skilled artisan would find it obvious to convert rpm to W/m3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
08/04/2026
Prosecution Insights