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 .
Request for Continued Examination
The request filed on 18254187 for a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 based on parent Application No. 18/254.187 is acceptable and a RCE has been established. An action on the RCE follows.
The following rejections are maintained:
Claim(s) 1-8 & 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki CN 109088092 A.
Claim(s) 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki CN 109088092 A in view of Makino WO 2018151118 A1.
The rejections of claims 1-14 are as follows:
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 & 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki CN 109088092 A.
With respect claims 1 & 8, Sasaki teaches a sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material (sulphide solid electrolyte material (10) containing phosphorus and sulfur; See the Abstract), comprising: Li, P, and S as constituent elements (Li3PS4; Embodiment 1), wherein in a spectrum obtained by 31P-NMR measurement (obtained by measured by 31P- NMR spectrum peaks defined in the range of 87.5~88.5 ppm is the 1 peak, the spectrum in FIG. 84.2~85.2 ppm peak at 2; See the Abstract). Further concerning claim 8, another solid electrolyte material other than the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material (a sulfide solid electrolyte material of the present embodiment, can have Li3PS4, Li4P2S6, Li7P3S11, Li3.25Ge0.25P0.75S4, Li10GeP2S12, Li9.54Si1.74P1.44S11.7Cl0.3, Li6PS5X (X: F, Cl, Br, I) and a specific crystal structure, also can be crystal and glass mixed presence of glass ceramic.; See Embodiment 1). With respect claim 4, a lithium ionic conductivity is
1.5 x 10-3 S/cm or higher (4.1x10-4 Ex. 1, 5.0 x10-4; Table 1):
PNG
media_image1.png
367
954
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect claim 5, the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material is formed of particles having a median size of 0.1 to 10 μm (median diameter of the sulphide solid electrolyte material 10 can be 10 μm or less; Embodiment 2; paragraph 5-6).
With respect claim 7, the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material is used for a lithium ion battery (lithium ion battery; Embodiment 1, paragraph 8). With respect claim 13, a lithium ion battery (lithium ion battery; Embodiment 1, paragraph 8), comprising: a positive electrode including a positive electrode active material layer (positive electrode active material particle 24; Embodiment 1, paragraph 11); an electrolyte layer (Li2S-P2S5; Embodiment 1, paragraph 24); and a negative electrode including a negative electrode active material layer (anode 21, the anode active material particles; Embodiment 1, paragraph 24);, wherein the electrolyte layer includes the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte (Li2S-P2S5; Embodiment 1, paragraph 24).
With respect to claim 14, molar amount (Li/P) of Li with respect to the molar amount of P is 3.2 to 3.4.( Li3PS4 , Li/P is 3.0. See the Embodiment section of Sasaki).
Sasaki does not teach or suggest: a total area of peaks derived from a PS4 structure is represented by 1, a total area of peaks derived from a P2S6 glass structure is 0.1 or more (claim 1); a total area of peaks derived from a PS4 glass structure is represented by 1, a total area of peaks derived from a P2S6 glass structure is 0.15 or more (claim 2); a total area of peaks derived from a PS4 glass structure is represented by 1, a total area of peaks derived from a PS4 crystal structure is 0.3 to 1 (claim 3); a molar ratio Li/P of a content of Li to a content of P in the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material is 1.0 or higher and 5.0 or lower, and a molar ratio S/P of a content of S to the content of P in the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material is 2.0 or higher and 6.0 or lower (claim 6); molar amount (Li/P) of Li with respect to the molar amount of P is 3.2 to 3.4 (claim 14).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a total area of peaks derived from a PS4 structure is represented by 1, a total area of peaks derived from a P2S6 glass structure is 0.1 or more (claim 1);in the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material of Sasaki, in order to increase ion conductivity of the electrolyte. Sasaki teaches obtaining by measured by 31P- NMR spectrum peaks, PS4 glass having a peak in the vicinity of 84.7 ppm. PS4 crystal having a peak in the vicinity of 88.0 ppm. P2S6 glass having a peak in the vicinity of 108 ppm. See “(basic insight of the present disclosure)”, paragraph 1. All values fall withing the ranges of Table 1 of the instant specification:
PNG
media_image2.png
170
900
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, "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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to a total area of peaks being derived from a PS4 glass structure is represented by 1, a total area of peaks derived from a P2S6 glass structure is 0.15 or more (claim 2); it would have been obvious in the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material of Sasaki, in order to increase ion conductivity of the electrolyte. Sasaki teaches obtaining by measured by 31P- NMR spectrum peaks, PS4 glass having a peak in the vicinity of 84.7 ppm. PS4 crystal having a peak in the vicinity of 88.0 ppm. P2S6 glass having a peak in the vicinity of 108 ppm. See “(basic insight of the present disclosure)”, paragraph 1. All values fall withing the ranges of Table 1 of the instant specification reproduced above. Furthermore, "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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to a total area of peaks derived from a PS4 glass structure is represented by 1, a total area of peaks derived from a PS4 crystal structure is 0.3 to 1 (claim 3); it would have been obvious in the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material of Sasaki, in order to increase ion conductivity of the electrolyte. Sasaki teaches obtaining by measured by 31P- NMR spectrum peaks, PS4 glass having a peak in the vicinity of 84.7 ppm. PS4 crystal having a peak in the vicinity of 88.0 ppm. P2S6 glass having a peak in the vicinity of 108 ppm. See “(basic insight of the present disclosure)”, paragraph 1. All values fall withing the ranges of Table 1 of the instant specification reproduced above. Furthermore, "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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to a molar ratio Li/P of a content of Li to a content of P in the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material is 1.0 or higher and 5.0 or lower, and a molar ratio S/P of a content of S to the content of P in the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material is 2.0 or higher and 6.0 or lower (claim 6) ; it would have been obvious in the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material of Sasaki, in order to increase ion conductivity of the electrolyte.. Sasaki teaches the molar ratio is Li2S: P2S5=75: 25 weighing the Li2S powder and the P2S5 powder to form Li3PS4. See Embodiment 1. Furthermore, "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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to a molar amount (Li/P) of Li with respect to the molar amount of P is 3.2 to 3.4 (claim 14); it would have been obvious in the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material of Sasaki, in order to increase ion conductivity of the electrolyte.. Sasaki teaches the molar ratio is Li2S: P2S5=75: 25 weighing the Li2S powder and the P2S5 powder to form Li3PS4. See Embodiment 1. Sasaki also teaches the Li3PS4, where Li/P is 3.0. See the Embodiment section of Sasaki. Furthermore, "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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
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.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki CN 109088092 A in view of Makino WO 2018151118 A1.
Sasaki teaches a sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material as described in the rejection recited hereinabove.
Sasaki does not teach that the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material includes a membrane and the solid electrolyte as a main component (claim 9); the solid electrolyte membrane is a compact obtained by compression-molding the particle-shaped solid electrolyte (claim 10); a content of a binder resin in the solid electrolyte membrane is less than 0.5 mass% with respect to 100 mass% as a total amount of the solid electrolyte membrane (claim 11); a content of the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material in the solid electrolyte membrane is 50 mass% or more with respect to 100 mass% as a total amount of the solid electrolyte membrane (claim 12).
Makino teaches that it is well known in the art to employ sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material including a membrane and the solid electrolyte as a main component (the solid electrolyte-containing sheet of the present invention can be used as an ion exchange membrane; the solid electrolyte composition of the present invention, the mass ratio of the total mass (total amount) of the inorganic solid electrolyte and the active material to the mass of the (B) binder is preferably in the range of 1,000 to 1. The ratio is more preferably 500 to 2, and further preferably 100 to 10; See “(Synthesis method of binder (B))” section; claim 9); the solid electrolyte membrane is a compact obtained by compression-molding the particle-shaped solid electrolyte (The solid electrolyte composition can be used as a molding material for the solid electrolyte layer; Fig. 1 disclosure; claim 10); a content of a binder resin in the solid electrolyte membrane is less than 0.5 mass% with respect to 100 mass% as a total amount of the solid electrolyte membrane (content of the binder (B) in the solid electrolyte composition is preferably 0.01% to 5%; See “(Synthesis method of binder (B))” section; claim 11).
Therefore,, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a membrane of Makino, in the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material of Sasaki, in order to increase structural integrity of the electrolyte. Regarding the electrolyte being the main component, it would have been obvious in the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material of Sasaki in view of Makino, in order to increase ion conductivity of the electrolyte.. Makino teaches the mass ratio of the total mass (total amount) of the inorganic solid electrolyte and the active material to the mass of the (B) binder is in the range of 1,000 to 1. The ratio is more preferably 500 to 2, and further preferably 100 to 10. See “(Synthesis method of binder (B))” section.
With respect to a content of the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material in the solid electrolyte membrane is 50 mass% or more with respect to 100 mass% as a total amount of the solid electrolyte membrane (claim 12); it would have been obvious in the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material of Sasaki in view of Makino, in order to increase ion conductivity of the electrolyte. Makino teaches the mass ratio of the total mass (total amount) of the inorganic solid electrolyte and the active material to the mass of the (B) binder is preferably in the range of 1,000 to 1. The ratio is more preferably 500 to 2, and further preferably 100 to 10. Furthermore, "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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts that Sasaki CN 109088092 A nor the Office Action identifies any disclosure where Sasaki:
“recognizes the claimed requirement that "when a total area of peaks derived from a PS4 structure is represented by 1, a total area of peaks derived from a P2S6 glass structure is 0.1 or more" as a result-effective variable. Sasaki discusses PS4 crystal and PS4 glass, and teaches a ratio based on the integrated intensity of a peak attributed to PS4 crystal and the integrated intensity of a peak attributed to PS4 glass (Sasaki, Abstract; "basic insight of the present disclosure," paragraph bridging pp. 3-4). Applicant does not understand Sasaki's discussion of PS4 crystal and PS4 glass to recognize, as a variable to be controlled to obtain improved ionic conductivity, the claimed requirement that "when a total area of peaks derived from a PS4 structure is represented by 1, a total area of peaks derived from a P2S6 glass structure is 0.1 or more."
This argument is not persuasive as Sasaki was not relied upon as an explicit teaching that "when a total area of peaks derived from a PS4 structure is represented by 1, a total area of peaks derived from a P2S6 glass structure is 0.1 or more" is a result-effective variable. In contrast, it is asserted that it would have been obvious in the sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material of Sasaki, in order to increase ion conductivity of the electrolyte. Sasaki teaches obtaining by measured by 31P- NMR spectrum peaks, PS4 glass having a peak in the vicinity of 84.7 ppm. PS4 crystal having a peak in the vicinity of 88.0 ppm. P2S6 glass having a peak in the vicinity of 108 ppm. See “(basic insight of the present disclosure)”, paragraph 1. All values fall within the ranges of Table 1 of the instant specification reproduced below.
PNG
media_image2.png
170
900
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, result-effective variables may be art recognized and not required to be implicitly or explicitly taught by the reference. Lastly, "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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Applicant asserts that:
"the amount of Li, P and S present will directly affect the ion conductivity of the solid electrolyte, and therefore is a result-effective variable well known in the art beyond Sasaki" (Office Action, p. 12). Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 does not merely recite an amount of Li, P, and S. Claim 1 recites that "when a total area of peaks derived from a PS4 structure is represented by 1, a total area of peaks derived from a P2S6 glass structure is 0.1 or more." The rejection does not show that Sasaki or the relied-upon record recognizes this claimed requirement as a known result-effective variable. (2-2) The Evidence Of Record Shows That Claim 1 Would Not Have Been Obtained By Routine Optimization3.”
This argument is not persuasive as Sasaki was not relied upon as an explicit teaching that "the amount of Li, P and S present will directly affect the ion conductivity of the solid electrolyte " is a result-effective variable. It was asserted that the amount of elements in an electrode is a result-effective variable well known in the art beyond Sasaki. The composition deepening on the stoichiometric amounts of Li, P and S will directly effect conductivity.
In addition, Applicant submits a Declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132. The Declaration submitted further rebuts the Examiner's position that claim 1 would have been obtained by routine optimization without new or unexpected results. See Page 4 of the Remarks. The Declaration has been considered, but is not commensurate in scope with the claims. It appears that the previous arguments in the Final Rejection mailed May 5, 2026 were not clear. The claims necessitate “Li, P, and S as constituent elements“, and the open ended structure of this language in claim 1 means that any compound with Li, P and S that satisfies “wherein in a spectrum obtained by 31P-NMR measurement, when a total area of peaks derived from a PS4 structure is represented by 1, a total area of peaks derived from a P2S6 glass structure is 0.1 or more” is embraced by the claim. However, “Li, P, and S as constituent elements “ have several different permutations and it is unclear whether every permutation of compounds of Li, P and S satisfy the instant claims. Stated differently, claim 1 is broader than the scope of the Examples, Comparative Examples and Declaration. Therefore, the declaration is not sufficient to overcome the rejection of record. For example, here is a list of compounds with Li, P, and S as constituent: Li₃PS₄; Li₄P₂S₆; Li₇P₃S₁₁; Li₇PS₆; Li₈P₂S₉; Li₉PS₈; Li₁₀P₃S₁₂; Li₁₀P₄S₁₀; Li₁₁P₃S₁₄; LiPS₃; Li₃PS₃; Li₁₀GeP₂S₁₂; Li₁₀SnP₂S₁₂; Li₁₀SiP₂S₁₂; Li₆PS₅Cl; Li₆PS₅Br; Li₆PS₅I; Li₅.₅PS₄.₅Cl₁.₅; Li₅.₅PS₄.₅Br₁.₅; Li₅.₅PS₄.₅I₁.₅; Li₆.₂₅PS₅.₂₅Cl₀.₇₅; Li₆.₂₅PS₅.₂₅Br₀.₇₅; Li₆.₂₅PS₅.₂₅I₀.₇₅; Li₉.₅₄Si₁.₇₄P₁.₄₄S₁₁.₇Cl₀.₃; Li₉.₅₄Ge₁.₇₄P₁.₄₄S₁₁.₇Cl₀.₃; Li₉.₆Si₁.₆P₁.₄S₁₂; Li₉.₆Ge₁.₆P₁.₄S₁₂; Li₁₀.₃Sn₀.₃P₁.₇S₁₂; Li₉.₄₂Al₀.₀₂P₂.₉₈S₁₂; Li₉.₈Ge₁.₈P₁.₂S₁₂.
It is unclear as to which of these elements satisfy the spectrum requirements of claim 1. Furthermore, as previously positioned, claim 1 is a product claim and not a method. Therefore, the method of manufacturing is not given weight and it is unclear as to whether multiple different methods of making Li, P, and S as constituent compounds also produce the necessitated spectrum results. The examples only include two compounds. Only one compound is Exemplified and two compounds in the Comparative Examples. Therefore, the Examples, Comparative Examples nor Declaration are commensurate in scope with claim 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
343
1017
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In order to overcome the rejection of recorded, the Applicant is encouraged to claim specific compounds and not a general Li, P and S constituent elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE M WILLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1309. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Tiffany Legette, may be reached at 571-270-7078. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Monique M Wills/
Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights