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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment foiled March 9, 2026.
Claim 8 objection under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1, is overcome.
The following rejections are maintained:
Claim(s) 1-8 & 13 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 1-13 are maintained, and newly added claim 14 is rejected 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 in Sasaki of the total area of the P2S6 glass peaks relative to the total area of the PS4 peaks as to how these peaks related to the ion conductivities. The Office Action does not identify any teaching in Sasaki that the total area of P2S6 glass peaks, relative to the PS4 peaks, was recognized as a variable to be deliberately controlled in order to improve ionic conductivity or any other property. This argument is not persuasive. 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.).
Applicant asserts that claim 1 requires a specific minimum quantity of P2S6 glass (> 0.1 when the PS4 peak areas are normalized to 1). This is not a mere "tuning" of a parameter that Sasaki already identifies as result-effective. This argument is not persuasive as the claim requires a broad material comprising Li, P and S, and it is well known in the art that Li, P and S compounds are Lithium-ion conductors. See the Background Art of the instant specification at for evidence. Thus, 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.
Applicant asserts that the specification and experimental results demonstrate that the claimed invention can be obtained only when both of the following conditions are satisfied in the synthesis:
(i) using P2Ss as a raw material in which the phosphorus (P) content is more than 27.87 mass% (i.e., a P2Ss raw material that includes an excess amount of P relative to the stoichiometric composition); and
(ii) using Li3N as a raw material.
PNG
media_image3.png
343
1017
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This argument is not persuasive as there are only two Comparative Examples in the specification. There does not appear to be enough data to show that the experimental results can only be obtained by both of those conditions. Furthermore, the instant claims are product claims, and the amount of phosphorous was not claimed and the method of making not considered. If the method is supported and unexpected, the Applicant is encouraged to file method claims. Modifying the amount of a result effective variable, which is the amount of Li, P and S present, is obvious to improve the ion conductivity of the solid electrolyte. Lastly, as written, the total area of peaks for the P2S6 is broad and variable.
It is acknowledged that: Applicant notes that the reliance on the specific raw materials is not to read unclaimed process limitations into the claim, but to demonstrate that the claimed structure is not reachable by routine optimization of Sasaki's compositions and conditions. However, there does not appear to be enough data to show that the experimental results can only be obtained by both of those conditions. It is also acknowledge that Comparative Example 1 uses P2S6 but no Li3N. However, there is a multitude of lithium compound starting materials that may yield Li, P and S lithium ion compounds, resulting in the 31P- NMR spectrum peaks claimed. Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
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 extension fee 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 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