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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-17 and 19-21) in the reply filed on 3/30/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
Claims 4 and 12 is 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.
Claim 4 recites Formula 1 and at the end of the formula, utilizes symbols “●●●1”. It is unclear what this is indicating. As best understood, it appears Applicant is labeling this chemical formula as “1”, as in Formula 1 and will be examined as such. Clarification is required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the iodine" and “the bromine” in line . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 11, 14-17 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Seong (US 2020/0194827).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Seong 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 the diffraction peaks of Fig. 1 which illustrates a composition such as Li5Mg0.5PS5Cl).
Regarding claim 2, Seong 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 (in the composition disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the ratio of Mg/P is 0.5).
Regarding claim 3, Seong further discloses a ratio of a content of the element A to a content of the lithium is 0.03 or more in terms of molar ratio (in the composition disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the ratio of Mg/Li is 0.1).
Regarding claim 11, Seong further discloses bromine (see paragraph 46 which discloses that the halogen can comprise bromine).
Regarding claim 14, Seong 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 of Seong disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the ratio is 5).
Regarding claim 15, Seong 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 of Seong disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the ratio is 5).
Regarding claim 17, Seong further discloses an ionic conductance at 25° C. is 1 mS/cm or more (see Table 1 where nearly all compositions have a conductivity above 1mS/cm).
Regarding claims 19-21, Seong further discloses a battery in a vehicle (paragraph 4).
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, 5-10,12 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, 8, 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.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, 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 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keiichi (JP 2020111475 A with references made to the machine translation) in view of Seong (US 2020/0194827).
Regarding claim 1 , Keiichi discloses a solid electrolyte comprising lithium, phosphorus, sulfur, halogen (see abstract which discloses a sulfide solid electrolyte comprising a halogen such as iodine and bromine, lithium, sulfur and phosphorus) which exhibits a crystal structure (see lines 178-179 which teaches heating to a crystallization temperature which will form crystals).
Keiichi, however, does not explicitly teach the presence of element A.
Seong also discloses a sulfide solid electrolyte (see abstract).
Seong, like Keiichi, 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 Keiichi in order to improve the ionic conductivity.
Regarding claim 13, Keiichi 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 (see lines 94-95 and 101-102 which teaches a ratio of the moles of iodine to the total moles of LiI and LiBr and overlaps the claimed range).
While Keiichi does not explicitly teach the claimed range, it does teach a range 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)).
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
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