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.
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) and wherein the composition has a mechanical durability of at least 80%.
The particles of Takahashi does meet the claimed “durability” as defined by Applicant. In Applicant specification, the durability is defined as:
Durability (%)=[1−((initial mass−mass after protocol)/initial mass)]*100.
This durability is measured after a “stirring” method is completed on the articles. However, there is no details regarding what this “stirring” entails. As such, Takahashi does indeed meet this metric of durability as the stirring can be limited to an intensity that does not pulverize the particles at all which would result in a durability of 100%.
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 claim 6, 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).
Regarding claim 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 7-8, Applicant argues that Takahashi teaches away from the claimed durability limitation. The Office respectfully disagrees with this argument. As discussed in the rejection above, the claimed “durability” metric lacks definition in the specification that would preclude it from being taught by Takahashi. The stirring method can be as intense or as delicate as would be needed to maintain the durability of Takahashi above a certain threshold. In other words, the claimed “durability” does not convey the “compactness” or “softness” that Applicant appears to be arguing as there is a lack of definition of what the stirring method is that determines durability.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments do not raise any new issues.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights