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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-5, in the reply filed on 06/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all pending claims are sufficiently related such that a thorough search of the subject matter of Group I claims would encompass a search for the subject matter of the remaining claims. This is not found persuasive because claims 6-8 are drawn to a method whereas claims 1-5 are drawn to a solid electrolyte, and the heat treatment temperature and melting of the absorbent material as claimed n claim 6 is not directly related to solid electrolyte material as claimed in claim 1; the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter, and the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (JP-2016024967-A) (see translation), and in further view of Morita (JP-2019102263-A) (see translation) and Ito (US-20210313618-A1) (application date 2019-06-04).
Regarding claim 1, Kato discloses a solid electrolyte for a solid-state battery which has a composition represented by Y(LiX)(100-y)(Li3.35Ge0.35P0.65S4) where 0<y<20 (see e.g., Kato; [0019]), and further provides examples such as example 1 of 0.11(LiBr)(Li--3.35Ge0.35P0.65S4) (see e.g., Kato; [0057]-[0058]), which corresponds with the claimed sulfide-based electrolyte and a LiBr-containing absorbent material. Kato further discloses wherein the composition is formed with lithium sulfide (Li-2S), phosphorus pentasulfide (P2S5), and lithium bromide (LiBr) (see e.g., Kato; [0057]), which are the same materials as used in example 1 of the instant specification. Furthermore, Kato provides diffraction peaks similar to the 2θ=29.3° and 2θ=32.6° as claimed in claim 4 and provided in fig. 2 of the instant specification (see e.g., Kato; fig. 5, [0061]). Kato further provides that the material is heated at a temperature of preferably 600 °C or lower, such as at 400 °C (see e.g., Kato; [0054], [0058]), which corresponds with the instant specification examples 1-4 of the firing temperature at 500-600 °C.
Kato provides that the composition comprises Ge, but does not disclose that the composition is formed with tin sulfide such that the composition includes tin (Sn). However, Morita discloses a solid electrolyte for a solid-state battery which has a composition including a Tin (Sn) component instead of Ge, with a general formula of Li (4-x-y + 2z) Sn (1-x) P (x) S (4-y + z) Cl (y) (x = 0.73, y= 0.1, 0.19 ≤ z ≤ 0.34) (such that Sn0.27) (see e.g., Morita; [0024]), and is formed using the same similar precursor materials of Li2S and P2S5, with the inclusion of SnS (see e.g., Morita; [0042]). Morita further provides examples of the composition (see e.g., Morita; [0042]-[0047]), and Morita discloses X-ray diffraction measurements similar to that of Kato having at least a peak around 2θ=29° and a smaller peak after 2θ=30° (see e.g., Morita; fig. 5, [0066]).
Furthermore, Ito provides a LGPS-based solid electrolyte wherein the composition includes components of Li, Sn, P, S, and a component X which may be Br (see e.g., Ito; [0027]). Ito discloses that the LGPS-based solid electrolyte is beneficial because Sn may be used instead of Ge, as Ge is an expensive element (see e.g., Ito; [0014]). Furthermore, Ito is analogous art because Ito similarly discloses X-ray diffraction peaks similar to that of Kato and Morita having at least a peak around 2θ=29° and a smaller peak after 2θ=30° (see e.g., Ito; fig. 3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the solid-electrolyte composition provided by Kato by forming a composition including tin (Sn) instead of Ge as disclosed by Morita. Because Sn and Ge both belong to group 14 of the periodic table, they share highly similar properties such as 4 valence electrons and allow compatibility. Thus, the modification of Ge to Sn would be compatible in the sulfide solid electrolyte material of Kato. The modification of tin as disclosed by Morita may be applied to the composition of Kato such that the subscript of Sn may be about 0.27 as disclosed by Morita. Furthermore, the modification of Morita to Kato is preferable as disclosed by Ito because Ito provides the LGPS-based solid electrolyte having all components of Li, Sn, P, S, and Br. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide electrolyte material that is not easily affected by change in quality of raw materials, has high ion conductivity, and without use of Ge that is an expensive element (see e.g., Ito; [0014], Morita; [0008]).
Because Kato modified with Morita and Ito provide a solid electrolyte with a composition almost identical to the instant specification composition (Li3.36Sn0.335P0.64S3.9Br0.1 as in example 1, or Li3.40Sn0.375P0.60S3.9Br0.1 as in example 3), it is the examiner’s position that the resulting properties of the composition would be inherent, including wherein a binding energy of Lils shows a peak observed at 54.2-56.1 eV, and a binding energy of Br3d shows a peak observed at 67.5-69.5 eV, as determined by X- ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) as claimed.
MPEP 2112 I. states ‘“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.’
Regarding claim 2, modified Kato teaches the solid electrolyte for a solid-state battery according to claim 1. Because of the same combination as provided above regarding claim 1, that is because Kato modified with Morita and Ito provide a solid electrolyte with a composition almost identical to the instant specification composition (Li3.36Sn0.335P0.64S3.9Br0.1 as in example 1, or Li3.40Sn0.375P0.60S3.9Br0.1 as in example 3), it is the examiner’s position that the resulting properties of the composition would be inherent, including wherein a ratio of a peak count number of Br3d to a peak count number of Li1s (Br3d count number/Li1s peak count number) is 0.3 or more.
MPEP 2112 I. states ‘“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.’
Regarding claim 3, modified Kato teaches the solid electrolyte for a solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the sulfide-based solid electrolyte has a LiGePS type crystal structure (see e.g., Kato; [0019]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kato teaches the solid electrolyte for a solid-state battery according to claim 1. Because of the same combination as provided above regarding claim 1, that is because Kato modified with Morita and Ito provide a solid electrolyte with a composition almost identical to the instant specification composition (Li3.36Sn0.335P0.64S3.9Br0.1 as in example 1, or Li3.40Sn0.375P0.60S3.9Br0.1 as in example 3), it is the examiner’s position that the resulting properties of the composition would be inherent, including wherein a ratio of an intensity of a peak of LiBr present at 2θ=32.6° to an intensity of a peak of LiGePS type crystal present at 2θ=29.3° (LiBr peak (2θ=32.6°) intensity/LiGePS type crystal peak (2θ=29.3°) intensity) is 0.02 or more, as determined by XRD.
MPEP 2112 I. states ‘“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.’
Regarding claim 5, modified Kato teaches the solid electrolyte for a solid-state battery according to claim 1.
Because of the same combination as provided above regarding claim 1, that is because Kato modified with Morita and Ito provide a solid electrolyte with a composition almost identical to the instant specification composition (Li3.36Sn0.335P0.64S3.9Br0.1 as in example 1, or Li3.40Sn0.375P0.60S3.9Br0.1 as in example 3), it is the examiner’s position that the resulting properties of the composition would be inherent, including wherein a lattice volume (V) of the solid electrolyte for a solid-state battery and a lattice volume (V0) of the sulfide-based solid electrolyte satisfy the relationship of 0.5 ≤ {V-V0)/V0} x 100.
MPEP 2112 I. states ‘“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.’
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KEVIN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights