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
Claim 10-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/10/2026
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,3-5, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (US-20190348708-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Masahiro’, as evidenced by ‘A Review of Glass and Crystallizations of Glass-Ceramics’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Alzahrani’
Regarding Claim 1,
Masahiro teaches a solid electrolyte comprising (Masahiro, “A main object of the present disclosure is to provide a solid electrolyte with excellent ion conductivity”, see Abstract) : a lithium argyrodite film of formula of Lin-PxS-yXz and exhibiting a polyamorphous microstructure (Masahiro, “Examples of the amorphous sulfide solid electrolyte may include, Li2S—P2S5—LiI,… Li2S—P2S5—LiI—LiBr. ”, see [0076]) (Masahiro, “The solid electrolyte in the present disclosure is preferably a sulfide solid electrolyte. Also, the solid electrolyte in the present disclosure is preferably glass ceramic.”, see [0051])(The examiner notes that polyamorphous is interpreted based on the specification to including at least one amorphous phase “The lithium argyrodite may exhibit a polyamorphous microstructure. The polyamorphous microstructure may be a fully amorphous material, or may be a mixed glass-ceramic material”, see [0023] of the instant application) (The examiner notes that glass-ceramic contains amorphous phase(s) as evidenced by Alzahrani, “Partially crystallised glasses, often referred to as glass-ceramics, are a multiphase material containing amorphous and crystalline phase/s with various ratios (normally from 20% to 95%) The aim behind preparing glass-ceramics is that the end material should have superior properties, which cannot be achieved from the original glass, such as thermal shock resistance, control of thermal expansions, mechanical strength, optical properties etc.”) wherein X is F, Cl, Br, I, or a mixture of any two or more thereof; and wherein n is 1 to 10 ,x is 1 to 3, y is 3 to 8, and z is 1 to 3 (Masahiro, “ The amorphous oxide solid electrolyte may further contain a halogen element. Examples of the halogen element may include a F element, a Cl element, a Br element, and an I element.”, see [0078]).
Regarding Claim 3,
Masahiro teaches the solid electrolyte of claim 1, wherein the lithium argyrodite film comprises bridging P- S-P and terminating P-S--Li* bonds (Masahiro, “Examples of the amorphous sulfide solid electrolyte may include Li2S—P2S5, Li2S—P2S5—LiI, Li2S—P2S5—GeS2, Li2S—P2S5—Li2O, Li2S—P2S5—Li2O—LiI, Li2S—P2S5—LiI—LiBr, Li2S—SiS2, Li2S—SiS2—LiI, Li2S—SiS2—LiBr, Li2S—SiS2—LiCl, Li2S—SiS2—B2S3—LiI, Li2S—SiS2—P2S5—LiI, Li2S—B2S3, Li2S—P2S5—ZmSn”, see [0076]).
Regarding Claim 4,
Masahiro teaches the solid electrolyte of claim 1, wherein the lithium argyrodite film comprises thiophosphate conformations having formulas PxSy where x is 1 to 3 and y is 3 to 8 (Masahiro, “Examples of the amorphous sulfide solid electrolyte may include Li2S—P2S5,”, see [0076]).
Regarding Claim 5,
Masahiro teaches the solid electrolyte of claim 1, wherein the lithium argyrodite film comprises thiophosphate conformations having formulas PS43-, P2S64-, P2S7 4-, and PS3- (Masahiro, “Li2S—P2S5—LiI,”, see [0076])(The examiner interprets P2S64-, as analogous to S—P2S5 based on the instant application “P2S6 4− is a hypothiophosphate with one P—S—P bridging bonds and with six P—S−—Li+ bonds”, see [0026] the examiner notes that the notation is different but the bond structure is similar)
Regarding Claim 7,
Masahiro teaches the solid electrolyte of claim 1, wherein the lithium argyrodite film exhibits an ionic conductivity greater than 10-6 S/cm (Masahiro, “The Li ion conductivity at 25° C. is, for example, 1.0*10−3 S/cm or more, may be 3.0*10−3 S/cm or more, and may be 3.3*10−3 S/cm or more.”, see [0052]).
Regarding Claim 9,
Masahiro teaches the solid electrolyte of claim 1, wherein X is Cl (Masahiro, “ The amorphous oxide solid electrolyte may further contain a halogen element. Examples of the halogen element may include a F element, a Cl element, a Br element, and an I element.”, see [0078]).
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.
Claims 2, 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20190348708-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Masahiro’
Regarding Claim 2,
Masahiro teaches the solid electrolyte of claim 1, wherein the lithium argyrodite film has a thickness of about 1 um to about 50 um (Masahiro, “There are no particular limitations on the thickness of the solid electrolyte film; for example, …, and may be 10 μm or less. “, see [0081]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 10 μm or less broadly overlaps the claimed range of 1 μm to about 50 μm. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 8,
Masahiro teaches the solid electrolyte of claim 1, wherein the lithium argyrodite film has a thickness of about 10 μm to about 20 μm (Masahiro, “There are no particular limitations on the thickness of the solid electrolyte film.. and may be 10 μm or less..”, see [0081]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 10 μm or less broadly overlaps the claimed range of 10 μm to about 20 μm. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 20,
Masahiro teaches a solid-state battery comprising :a cathode comprising a cathode active material; an anode comprising lithium metal; an electrolyte disposed between and in physical contact with the cathode and the anode(Masahiro, “The present disclosure also provides an all solid state battery comprising a cathode active material layer containing a cathode active material, an anode active material layer containing an anode active material, and a solid electrolyte layer formed between the cathode active material layer and the anode active material layer; wherein at least one of the cathode active material layer, the anode active material layer, and the solid electrolyte layer contains the above described solid electrolyte.”, see [0019])(Masahiro, “Examples of the anode active material may include a metal active material and a carbon active material. Examples of the metal active material may include Li, In, Al, Si, and Sn.”, see [0062]); and wherein the electrolyte comprises a film of polyamorphous lithium argyrodite having a thickness of about 1 μm to about 50 μm (Masahiro, “There are no particular limitations on the thickness of the solid electrolyte film; for example, the thickness is 600 μm or less, may be 300 μm or less, may be 100 μm or less, may be 30 μm or less, and may be 10 μm or less. Meanwhile, the thickness of the solid electrolyte film is, for example, 0.5 μm or more.”, see [0081]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 10 μm or less broadly overlaps the claimed range of 1 μm to about 50 μm Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20190348708-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Masahiro’ in view of ‘Role of amorphous boundary layer in enhancing ionic conductivity of lithium–lanthanum–titanate electrolyte’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Mei’
Regarding Claim 6,
Masahiro does not teach the solid electrolyte of claim 1, wherein the lithium argyrodite film further comprises spherical nanocrystallites separated by amorphous grain boundaries.
Mei teaches the electrolyte comprises nanocrystallites separated by an amorphous grain boundaries (Mei, “In order to improve the grain boundary effect, an amorphous silica layer is introduced into grain boundary of ceramic electrolytes based on lithium–lanthanum–titanate, as evidenced by electron microscopy. The results showed that the total ionic conductivity could be to be enhanced over 1 × 10−4 S/cm at room temperature.”, see Abstract)(see annotated figure below)
PNG
media_image1.png
516
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mei teaches that the amorphous grain boundary increases the conductivity of the solid electrolyte (Mei, “In order to improve the grain boundary effect, an amorphous silica layer is introduced into grain boundary of ceramic electrolytes based on lithium–lanthanum–titanate, as evidenced by electron microscopy. The results showed that the total ionic conductivity could be to be enhanced over 1 × 10−4 S/cm at room temperature.”, see Abstract).
Masahiro and Mei are analogous as they are both of the same field of solid-state electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the solid-state electrolyte as taught in Masahiro to have an amorphous grain boundary in order to improve the conductivity of the electrolyte.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 5pm.
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights