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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments filed on 03/02/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently under examination on the merits.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Table 1, Example 2, Ion conductivity is unreasonably high. Appropriate correction is required,
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities “(ii) a PS4 structure, with elemental halogen” should read “a PS4 structure, with (ii) elemental halogen”, in order to be consistent with claim 16. Appropriate correction is required.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (US2018/0241077, ‘077 hereafter) in view of Yamada et al (EP3598462, of record, ‘462 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1-9, 15 and 18, ‘077 discloses a resin composition comprising a compound having lithium, phosphorus and sulfur ([0011]-[0012], [0063], Example 2-1, [0125]) mixed with a thermoplastic resin having polyether chain reading upon polyether as in the present claim 6 ([0043], Chemical Formula 5, [0125], PPC). ‘077 does not set forth that the compound having a disulfide bond, which is obtained by oxidizing a compound having phosphorus and sulfur element and an oxidizing agent as recited in the present claims 2-4; however, in the same field of endeavor, ‘462 discloses a compound having phosphorus and sulfur with a disulfide bond which naturally shows a peak by Raman spectroscopy, is obtained by a process of oxidizing a compound having phosphorus and sulfur element with an oxidizing agent as recited in the present claims 2-4 and 15, wherein oxidizing agent X is iodine and/or bromine ([0006], Example 1, raw material lithium sulfide reacted with diphosphorus pentasulfide forms into Li3PS4, which is further oxidized by halogen to form a compound having disulfide bond in the process); and the compound also comprises a metal being lithium and further includes a halogen (Example 1, the material also contains halogen atom); which provides high ionic conductivity ([0005]). In light of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the compound having phosphorus and sulfur with a disulfide bond as taught by ‘462, to modify the resin composition of ‘077, in order to render a resin composition having high ionic conductivity. It is also noted that the compound as recited in claims 2-4 is in product by process format and that the process limitation does not further limit the product structurally unless it imparts structure by the recited process steps. The product being formed as claimed would not differentiate over a product formed in another conventional way structurally. Therefore, if the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113 for PBP).
Regarding claims 10-14 and 20, modified ‘077 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, ‘077 also discloses a binder, a composite electrode layer, a sheet and a battery comprising the composition ([0094]-[0105], slurry reading upon binder), wherein a thermoplastic such as styrene-butadiene-based thermoplastic elastomer and/or a cellulose ether can be used as a binder resin which is well-known in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-17 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The reason for the allowance is that the prior art of record does not specifically disclose or fairly suggests a resin composition as recited in the present claim 1, further comprising a halogen element and an element M as recited in the claim 17, wherein M:X is in a range of 9:2 to 3:6; or further comprising a crystalline phase of LiI. The prior art of record also fails to disclose a process as recited in the present claim 15, wherein the molar ratio of raw material compound (i) to halogen is in a range of 3:1 to 1:3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/02/2026 have been fully considered and they are not persuasive regarding 103 rejection over cited prior art Takahashi and Yamada. Applicant argues that Yamada does not disclose a compound comprising a PS4 structure and a disulfide bonding to two phosphorus element, and the raw material does not have a PS4 structure. The examiner’s position is that Yamada discloses a process step of ball-milling lithium sulfide and diphosphorus pentasulfide together, which is the same as the process step applied in the present application (See examples of present application) would have produced a compound having PS4 structure. In the presence of bromine and iodine, this compound would have been further oxidized into the compound as presently claimed ([0093]-[0095]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Arron Austin can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782