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 .
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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-13 and 18-20, drawn to a composition.
Group II, claim(s) 14-15, drawn to a method of preparation.
Group III, claim(s) 16-17, drawn to a method of preparation.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I-III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of the claimed composition (I), this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Hikima (High ionic conductivity of multivalent cation doped Li6PS5Cl solid electrolytes synthesized by mechanical milling, RSC Adv. 2020, 10, 22304-22310). Hikima teaches the claimed composition in the abstract.
During a telephone conversation with Garrett Sternhagen on 2/19/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-13 and 18-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 14-17 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 4, Applicant further clarifies the composition of the product and states that the product can be Li7P3S11. However, this composition contradicts the composition of parent claim 1 (Formula I). In other words, the mentioned composition of claim 4 does not fall within the definition of the composition laid out in claim 1. Clarification is required.
Likewise, in claim 6, Applicant claims the composition consists of compositions that contradict formula I of claim 1. Utilizing the closed term “consisting of”, Applicant is claiming that the composition can consist of only these chemical formulas. As defined in claim 1, the composition comprises formula (I) and therefore it cannot “consist” of only LiX, Li2S, Li15P4S16Cl3 or Li3PO4, as these recited compositions contradict the formula I of claim 1. Clarification is required as it is unclear what the composition “consists” of.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-11, 13 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takahashi (US 2021/0013542).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 7, 8, Takahashi discloses a composition comprising a product according to formula (I):
LiaPSbXc (I)
wherein
X represents at least one halogen element;
a represents a number from 2.0 to 7.0;
b represents a number from 3.5 to 6.0; and
c represents a number from 0 to 3.0 (see Table 1 which discloses several examples of a composition that falls within this range, such as Li5.8PS4.8Cl1.2;
wherein the composition is in the form of particles or articles a size of which being such that less than 10.0 wt % of the composition passes through a sieve of 400 μm (see paragraph 108 which discloses that the composition is pelletized in to pellets that are 10mm in diameter and 2mm- 5mm in thickness and that none of these pellets (0%) will fit through the claimed sieve).
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi further discloses that the composition consists essentially of the product according to formula (I) (see paragraph 108 which discloses a process of forming these pellets and this process does not include any other materials other than the sulfide solid electrolyte).
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi discloses an embodiment where the the composition further comprises: an amorphous phase (see paragraph 53 which discloses) amorphization of the solid electrolyte as a result of mixing) and see the rejection of claim 1 above which discloses that the solid electrolyte comprises Li5.8PS4.8Cl1.2.
Regarding claims 6 and 9, Takahashi further discloses that the product is 100%, or consists of, product formula (I). Paragraph 108 illustrates an example of the entirety (100%) of the pellet is made from the sulfide solid electrolyte compositions of Table 1).
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi teaches the identically claimed composition of claim 1, and therefore, the release of H2S under similar operating conditions as claimed, is assumed to be present in Takahashi as well. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi further discloses the particles or the articles of the composition are constituted of particles aggregated exhibiting a d50 between 1 and 20 μm wherein d50 represents a particle size such that 50% (in number) of the particles present a size which is less than or equal to d50 (as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, particles were aggregated to produce the article, and see Table 1 which shows the d50 of the samples, many fall within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 13, Takahashi further discloses the article of the composition is in a shape of a cylinder having a circular cross section (see paragraph 108 which discloses a diameter of the pellet and a thickness, which indicates a cylindrical, circular shape).
Regarding claim 18, Takahashi further discloses further comprising at least one polymeric material (see paragraph 73 which further discloses a binder/polymer).
Regarding claim 19, Takahashi further discloses an electrolyte layer of an electrode formed from the composition of claim 1 (see paragraph 2 which disclose the inclusion of the solid electrolyte into a battery).
Regarding claim 20, Takahashi further discloses a separator formed from the composition of claim 1 (the solid electrolyte layer, described in claim 1 above, is a separator/electrolyte layer, of a battery).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 2021/0013542).
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi teaches a range of compositions that can make up the solid electrolyte, but does not explicitly teach any of the claimed compositions. However, Takahashi does teach a range of compositions (see paragraphs 29-32 which discloses Li7-xPS6Hax where Ha can be Cl and where x can be between 0.2 and 1.8) that overlaps the claimed range. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 2021/0013542) in view of Schuhmacher (US 2019/0173130).
Regarding claim 12, Takahashi is silent regarding the shape of the solid electrolyte particle or article.
Schuhmacher also discloses a sulfide solid electrolyte (see paragraph 8).
Schuhmacher goes on to teach a preferably spherical shape of the solid electrolyte composite with a sphericity greater than 0.7 (see claim 1 of Schuhmacher) in order to achieve a higher particle, fill level (paragraph 47).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the sphericity of Schuhmacher to the solid electrolyte particle or article of Takahashi in order to achieve a higher particle fill level.
Relevant Prior Art
US 2014/0141339 - Discloses a sulfide solid electrolyte with an average particle size of up to 200 microns, but does not teach any sizes above this.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/MATTHEW J MERKLING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725