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 1-9 in the reply filed on 2/9/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the Examiner has not provided burden on why each group lacks unity and that searching all of the claims would not impose a serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the International Search Report as well as the prior art rejections show that Groups I-V do not make a contribution over the prior art and therefore lack unity.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected products, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/9/2026.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Berkel et al (US 2017/0005367 A1) in view of Osada et al (US 2019/0356017 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Van Berkel disclose a method of manufacturing a modified sulfide solid electrolyte (making surface-functionalized lithium-phosphorus-sulfur iodide solid electrolyte; paragraph [0303]), the method comprising: mixing an organic halide and an organic solvent with a sulfide solid electrolyte (mixing 5 g of LPSI with 5 g of a 25 g of a 5 wt% solution of octenyltrichlorosilane in toluene; paragraph [0303]) and containing a lithium atom, a sulfur atom, a phosphorus atom, and a halogen atom (lithium-phosphorus-sulfur iodide solid electrolyte; paragraph [0303]); and removing the organic solvent (toluene removed by evaporation.
Van Berkel does not disclose the method comprising the sulfide solid electrolyte having a BET specific surface area of 10 m2/g or more.
However, Osada discloses a method (method of manufacturing a sulfide-based solid electrolyte; paragraph [0019]) comprising the sulfide solid electrolyte having a BET specific surface area of 10 m2/g to 35 m2/g (paragraph [0073]) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Van Berkel to include the surface area of the sulfide-based solid electrolyte of Osada for the sulfide solid electrolyte of Van Berkel because having the required surface area for the sulfide-based solid electrolyte provides increased heat dissipating performance of the sulfide-based solid electrolyte resulting in reduced heat generation amount of the electrode layer, prevents ion conductivity from being decreased resulting in increased performance of the electrode layer and provides a balance between ion conductivity of the sulfide-based solid electrolyte and heat generation amount of the electrode layer containing the sulfide-solid solid electrolyte during an electrode reaction (paragraphs [0074]-[0076] of Osada).
Regarding claim 2, Van Berkel and Osada disclose the method of manufacturing a modified sulfide solid electrolyte of claim 1 as noted above and Van Berkel discloses the method comprising the organic halide being selected from organic halide 4 represented by formula 4 where each of X41 to X43 is a halogen atom of a chlorine atom and X44 is a monovalent aliphatic hydrocarbon group (octenyltrichlorosilane; paragraph [0303]).
Regarding claim 3, Van Berkel and Osada disclose the method of manufacturing a modified sulfide solid electrolyte of claim 1 as noted above and Van Berkel discloses the method comprising a halogen atom contained in the organic halide being selected from a chlorine atom (octenyltrichlorosilane; paragraph [0303]).
Regarding claim 4, Van Berkel and Osada disclose the method of manufacturing a modified sulfide solid electrolyte of claim 2 as noted above.
The organic halide containing the organic halide 1 of formula 1 is met due to the organic halide 4 of formula 4 being chosen in the Markush group in claim 2 for the organic halide.
Regarding claim 5, Van Berkel and Osada disclose the method of manufacturing a modified sulfide solid electrolyte of claim 2 as noted above.
The organic halide containing the organic halide 2 of formula 2 is met due to the organic halide 4 of formula 4 being chosen in the Markush group in claim 2 for the organic halide.
Regarding claim 6, Van Berkel and Osada disclose the method of manufacturing a modified sulfide solid electrolyte of claim 2 as noted above.
The organic halide containing the organic halide 3 of formula 3 is met due to the organic halide 4 of formula 4 being chosen in the Markush group in claim 2 for the organic halide.
Regarding claim 8, Van Berkel and Osada disclose the method of manufacturing a modified sulfide solid electrolyte of claim 1 as noted above and Van Berkel discloses the method comprising the organic solvent being an aromatic hydrocarbon solvent (toluene; paragraph [0303]).
Regarding claim 9, Van Berkel and Osada disclose the method of manufacturing a modified sulfide solid electrolyte of claim 1 as noted above and Van Berkel discloses the method comprising 3.39 parts by mole of sulfur atoms with respect to 100 parts by mole of sulfur atoms contained in the sulfide solid electrolyte (paragraph [0304]).
The parts of moles of organic halide with respect to 100 parts by moles of sulfur atoms in the sulfide solid electrolyte is calculated below:
The formula for LPSI is Li7.4P1.6S7.2I (see paragraph [0281]). The molar mass of Li7.4P1.6S7.2I is 459.16 g/mol. The molar mass of sulfur in the formula Li7.4P1.6S7.2I is 230.91 g/mol. The molar ratio of sulfur in Li7.4P1.6S7.2I is 0.503 (230.91 g/mol/459.16 g/mol). The molar mass of octenyltrichlorosilane is 245.6 g/mol. Paragraph [0304] discloses 6 g of LPSI mixed with 0.055 g of octenyltrichlorosilane. The moles of sulfur atoms is 0.0066 moles [(6/459.16) x 0.503]. The moles of octenyltrichlorosilane is 2.24 x 10-4 moles. The parts by moles of organic halide with respect to 100 parts by moles of sulfur atoms contained in the sulfide solid electrolyte is 3.39 parts by mole organic halide [(2.24 x 10-4/0.0066) x 100].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Berkel et al (US 2017/0005367 A1) in view of Osada et al (US 2019/0356017 A1) in further view of Choi et al (US 2018/0351202 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Van Berkel and Osada disclose the method of manufacturing a modified sulfide solid electrolyte of claim 1 as noted above.
Van Berkel and Osada do not disclose the method comprising the organic halide containing organic halide 4 of formula 4 in which X41 is a group represented by a halogen atom and X42 to X44 are monovalent aliphatic hydrocarbon groups.
However, Choi discloses a composite solid electrolyte comprising a coating layer comprising a silane compound (paragraph [0078]) and wherein the organic halide containing organic halide 4 of formula 4 in which X41 is a group represented by a halogen atom and X42 to X44 are monovalent aliphatic hydrocarbon groups (triethylchlorosilane; paragraphs [0078] and [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Van Berkel and Osada to substitute the octenyltrichlorosilane of Van Berkel for the because having the required silane compound provides a composite sold electrolyte that is resistant to reduction (paragraph [0046] of Choi).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)-272-1291. 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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1785