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, 11, 13, 17 and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamada (US 2020/0358132).
Regarding claims 1 and 19-21, Yamada discloses a solid electrolyte comprising lithium, phosphorus, sulfur, halogen, and an element A, wherein the element A is at least one selected from the group consisting of magnesium, calcium, strontium, and barium, and the solid electrolyte has a crystal structure (see Comparative examples 9 and 10 where comparative example 9 discloses a composition comprising Li, P, S, Br and Mg and see comparative example 10 which discloses heating the sulfide solid electrolyte of comparative example 9 to produce a crystalline metal);
wherein there are diffraction peaks in a range of 19.9°±0.5° and a range of 23.6°±0.5° in an X-ray diffraction diagram using a CuKα ray (paragraph 184).
It is also noted that in paragraph 182 of Yamada, there is a typographical error in referencing “manganese sulfide”. This should be “magnesium sulfide” as it is referenced in the formula of paragraph 182, Table 7 and paragraph 186).
Regarding claim 11, Yamada further discloses the halogen is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine (Yamada teaches iodine and bromine, see paragraph 182).
Regarding claim 13, Yamada further discloses iodine and bromine, wherein a ratio of a content of the bromine to the total content of the iodine and the bromine is 0.1 or more and 0.9 or less in terms of molar ratio (per the ratios of paragraph 182, the bromine content ratio is 0.6).
Regarding claim 17, Yamada further discloses an ionic conductance at 25° C. is 1 mS/cm or more (see table 7 which discloses a conductivity of 5.32 mS/cm).
Regarding claim 22, Yamada further discloses there is no diffraction peak in a range of 21.0° ±0.5° (the diffraction peaks of CE10 in Fig. 1 show no peak at 21.0° ±0.5°).
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, 6-10,12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtomo (US 2014/0141341) in view of Seong (US 2020/0194827).
Regarding claims 1, 7-9 and 16, Ohtomo discloses a solid electrolyte comprising lithium, phosphorus, sulfur, halogen (see abstract which discloses a sulfide solid electrolyte comprising a halogen such as iodine, paragraph 102, lithium, sulfur and phosphorus, also see Example 1 in paragraph 102 which discloses such a compound) which exhibits a crystal structure (see Fig. 3 which illustrates diffraction peaks of a crystal structure).
Ohtomo, however, does not explicitly teach the presence of element A
Seong also discloses a sulfide solid electrolyte (see abstract).
Seong, like Ohtomo, teaches a sulfide solid electrolyte comprising lithium, sulfur, phosphorus and a halogen (see abstract). Seong goes on to teach that the sulfide solid electrolyte also comprises an alkaline earth metal that can be Ca, Mg or combination of Ca and Mg (paragraph 19). Seong teaches that the inclusion of the alkaline earth metal into the sulfide solid electrolyte composition can improve ionic conductivity (paragraph 2).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the alkaline earth metal of Seong to the composition of Ohtomo in order to improve the ionic conductivity.
Ohtomo further discloses wherein there are diffraction peaks in a range of 19.9°±0.5° and a range of 23.6°±0.5° in an X-ray diffraction diagram using a CuKα ray (see abstract) and the diffraction peak at 19.9 has the strongest or second strongest intensity (see annotated Fig. 3 below, for example).
Regarding claim 6, Ohtomo further discloses an intensity ratio IH/Iβ of a diffraction peak intensity IH in a range of 19.9°±0.5° to a diffraction peak intensity Iβ in a range of 18.1°±0.5° in the X-ray diffraction diagram using a CuKα ray is 0.2 or more (see annotated Fig. 3 before where the ratio between these two intensities is greater than 0.2).
PNG
media_image1.png
999
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3
Regarding claim 10, Ohtomo further discloses a ratio of a content of the iodine to a content of the halogen is 0.1 or more and 1 or less in terms of molar ratio (since iodine is the halogen, its content relative to the halogen is 1).
Regarding claim 12, Ohtomo further discloses a total content of the iodine and the bromine (there is no bromine, so the halogen is all iodine) to the content of the halogen is 0.5 or more and 1 or less in terms of molar ratio (as pointed out in the rejection of claim 10 above, since iodine is the halogen, its content relative to the halogen is 1).
Regarding claim 14, Ohtomo further discloses a ratio of the content of the lithium to the content of the phosphorus is 1 or more and 5 or less in terms of molar ratio (in the composition in paragraph 102, the ratio is approximately 3.3).
Regarding claim 15, Ohtomo further discloses a ratio of a content of the sulfur to the content of the phosphorus is 2 or more and 6 or less in terms of molar ratio (in the composition in paragraph 102, the ratio is approximately 4).
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 2020/0358132).
Regarding claim 1, Yamada discloses a solid electrolyte comprising lithium, phosphorus, sulfur, halogen, and an element A (see examples 5, 8 and 13 of Yamada which teach a solid electrolyte comprising lithium, sulfur, phosphorus, a halogen along with element A (a metal) , and the solid electrolyte has a crystal structure and wherein there are diffraction peaks in a range of 19.9°±0.5° and a range of 23.6°±0.5° in an X-ray diffraction diagram using a CuKα ray (see paragraph 151 which discloses crystallization peaks of example 13).
Yamada, however, in example 13, utilizes manganese as element A and not the claimed options of Mg, Ca, Sr or Ba.
Yamada also teaches that the metal included in the solid electrolyte can be either manganese or calcium, among other preferred metals (see paragraphs 25 and 30). Evidence of this known interchangeability is presented in examples 5 and 8 of Yamada which swaps calcium out for manganese in the same amounts (0.444 mmol of CaBr2 was used in example 5 and 0.444 mmol of MnBr2 was used in example 8).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the MnBr2 of example 13 of Yamada with the CaBr2 of example 5 in Yamada and perform the same crystallization treatment thereby obtaining another expressly contemplated metal-containing crystalline sulfide solid electrolyte. Such a modification is nothing more than a simple substitution of one known metal for another to yield entirely predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Yamada further discloses a ratio of a content of the element A to a content of the phosphorus is 0.08 or more in terms of molar ratio (see M/P ratio in table 2 which is 0.10).
Regarding claim 3, Yamada further discloses a ratio of the content of the element A to a content of the lithium is 0.03 or more in terms of molar ratio (M/Li = (M/P)/(Li/P) = 0.0302, see values in table 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 7-8, Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill would not have modified Ohtomo with Seong because Seong teaches an argyrodite-based structure and that the alkaline earth metal of Seong would not have been expected to produce the same results in the non-argyrodite structure of Ohtomo. The Office respectfully disagrees with this argument. Ohtomo and Seong are both directed toward sulfide solid electrolytes comprising lithium, phosphorus, sulfur and halogen. The fact that Seong’s specification additionally explains a proposed mechanism (lithium vacancy formation in an argyrodite lattice) does not limit the evidentiary value of Seong’s teaching to argyrodite-type materials only. Furthermore, Seong teaches a finite genus of alkaline earth metals, Mg, Ca, Sr and Ba which is identical to the four claimed elements in claim 1. Where there is a recognized problem or design need (here, improving the ionic conductivity of a sulfide solid electrolyte, an objective both references share), and a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to try the known options (such as Mg, Ca, Sr, and Ba).
On pages 9-11, Applicant argues that the claimed invention produces unexpected results and points to data from Ohtomo and the instant specification. Applicant argues that the phase transition suppression is unexpected and points to examples 1-1 to 1-4. However, it is noted that this date is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. For example, Applicant merely presents date for a single composition of the sulfide solid electrolyte which comprises Mg. The claim is much broader than this single composition. As such, Applicant has not met the requirement for arguing unexpected results as the claims are not commensurate in scope with the evidence.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art, Seong, teaches an alkaline metal containing sulfide solid electrolyte, but is silent regarding the claimed composition which includes the “yAX2” component and the prior art neither teaches nor suggests motivation to modify Seong to arrive at such a composition.
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