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 .
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 1-30 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.
Regarding claims 1-6, 23 and 26, it is not clear if the A and X elements combined to form A0.5X are actually in the solid electrolyte compound, as shown in claim 12 of the present invention. Claim 1 makes it seem like it does not need to be present, but is just used as a measurement.
Regarding claim 21, there is no lower limit for the ratio, meaning the ratio could be 0, which contradicts the statement that B is present.
As to claim 23, it is unclear what, “determined by first-principle calculation is selected” means.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 14-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (WO Publication 2019-098245, U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0358132 will be used as an English translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 23-26, Yamada discloses a sulfide solid electrolyte comprising a lithium element, a sulfur element, a phosphorus element, a halogen element, and at least one metal element selected from metal elements of Group 2 to 12 and Period 4 or higher that have been mixed and treated, wherein a solid electrolyte made from Li2S, P2S5, LiBr, LiI and MnBr has diffraction peaks of 19.9° and 23.6° in an X-ray diffraction diagram (Paragraphs 0011, 0122, 0125 and 0130 and Fig. 1). As to claims 7 and 8, Yamada teaches that MnBr can be used as the metal compound (Paragraph 0125). Regarding claim 9, Yamada teaches that LiI can be used in the electrolyte. As to claims 10, 11 and 14-17, Yamada shows in Table 2 that a Li/P molar ratio is 3.36, a M/P ratio is 0.11, and a S/P ratio is 3.8. Since both the metal and lithium are being compared to phosphorus, the M/P and Li/P ratios can be compared to give a M/Li ratio of 0.03. Additionally, Yamada teaches that the ratio of halogen elements/phosphorus is 0.1 to 1.5. This could result in a halogen to metal ratio of 2 or more. Regarding claim 18, Yamada shows in Table 2 that the ion conductivity can be 3.04, 3.37, 4.75 mS/cm, etc. As to claim 19, Yamada shows in Fig. 1 that the 19.9 peak is in the top 4 highest peaks. Regarding claim 21, Yamada teaches that boron sulfide can be used as an additive for the solid electrolyte. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that additives are in small amounts, resulting in a B ratio of less than 0.5 when compared to the metal. As to claim 22, Yamada shows in the Examples that boron is not used. As to claim 27, Yamada teaches that the halogen starting material does not have to contain lithium (Paragraphs 0052-0058). Regarding claims 28 and 29, Yamada discloses that the solid electrolyte is used in a lithium battery that is used in handheld devices (Paragraphs 0188).
Yamada fails to specifically teach that the hydration energy of a compound M0.5X comprising the metal and halogen is greater than hydration energy of LiI, that the M0.5X hydration energy is greater than -4, 0, 2, 4 and less than 200 meV/atom, and that activation energy of the ionic conductivity is 0.34 eV or less.
Regarding claims 1-6 and 23-26, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that a hydration energy of one of the divalent metals and halogens used in Yamada with a formula M0.5X would be greater than 4 and less than 200 meV/atom, as well as greater than that of LiI, because the same elements taught in the present invention are used in Yamada and would thus fit the range of the present invention. As to claim 20, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art that the activation energy of the ionic conductivity taught in Yamada could be 0.34 eV because activation energy goes down as ionic conductivity goes up, which is what the solid electrolyte of Yamada does for the battery.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (WO Publication 2019-098245, U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0358132 will be used as an English translation) in view of Matsuda (WO Publication 2020-184464, U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0173430 will be used as an English translation).
The teachings of Yamada have been discussed in paragraph 5 above.
Yamada fails to disclose that the battery is used in a vehicle.
Matsuda discloses a solid electrolyte used in a lithium ion battery comprising: a compound in which a part of Li atom in Li3PS4 is substituted with a polyvalent atom, such as Ca and Zn, wherein the compounds can further comprise a halogen atom, and wherein the battery can be used in a vehicle (Paragraphs 0003 and 0014-0017).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the battery of Yamada could be used in a vehicle because Matsuda teaches that batteries containing solid sulfide electrolyte with metal substitution can be used in portable electronic devices as well as combined into larger batteries for vehicles.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY L RAYMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-6545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am-6 pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
BRITTANY L. RAYMOND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1722
/BRITTANY L RAYMOND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722