DETAILED ACTION
The response filed May 22, 2026 has been entered. Applicant has canceled claim 3. Claims 1-2 and 4-17 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 14 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1, 14, and 16, “at least one of b and y is a value that satisfies > 0” is unclear. For example, it could read “at least one of b and y is greater than 0.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. However, new 112 rejections are applied below.
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 1-2 and 4-17 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.
In claim 1, “selected from the group consisting of Group 17 of the periodic table” is indefinite because the Markush group only contains one item.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (“Fan”, CN 110867606A) in view of Takahashi et al. (“Takahashi”, US 2020/0127325 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 14-17, Fan discloses a method for preparing a sulfide solid electrolyte (title).
Fan teaches the following components:
Sulfide solid electrolytes composed of Li (i.e. alkali metal-containing material; reads on claims 2 and 10), P (i.e. Groups 2 to 15), and S (i.e. chalcogen; reads on claim 12) elements ([0008])
Monoethers and cyclic ether, inter alia (i.e. polar aprotic solvent; reads on claim 13)
Aromatic compounds such as anthracene (i.e. transfer catalyst; reads on claim 11), inter alia ([0014])
Fan teaches mixing the components to obtain a suspension (i.e. suspended state) ([0028]).
Fan teaches separating the precipitate and supernatant from the suspension using a centrifuge, washing, and drying in a vacuum drying oven at 100 degrees C. (drying = powder form) and then heat-treating at 180 degrees C. under argon (i.e. inert gas) atmosphere ([0029]), which reads on claim 9.
As to claim 8, Fan teaches centrifugation and drying in a vacuum drying oven at 100 degrees C. ([0029]).
Further regarding claims 1, 4, and 14-17, Fan does not expressly teach an element from Group 17 or the element Y (halogens, etc.). Fan does not teach the sulfide solid electrolyte is part of a battery, although this would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Takahashi discloses a solid electrolyte of a lithium secondary battery (title) and teaches including a crystal phase of a cubic argyrodite type crystal structure, and is represented by the compositional formula: Li7-xPS6-xClyBrz, wherein the compositional formula satisfies x=y+z and 1.0<x<=1.8, and a ratio (z/y) of the molar ratio of Br to the molar ratio of Cl is from 0.1 to 10.0 (abstract). Takahashi also teaches that the prior art teaches a compound that has a cubic crystal structure in the F-43m space group ([0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the sulfide compound of Takahashi in Fan to retain high ion conductivity while decreasing battery resistance (Takahashi, [0028]).
With regard to the ionic conductivity being greater than or equal to 1.0 mS/cm, there would be a reasonable expectation that Fan as modified by Takahashi would have the claimed ionic conductivity since the components are substantially similar.
See MPEP 2144.09. A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
-As to claim 5, Fan teaches dissolving components ([0027]) and adding further components to obtain a suspension ([0028]). There would be a reasonable expectation that Fan as modified by Takahashi would result in the same dissolved state and suspended state.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan and Takahashi as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, and 8-17 above, and further in view of Shibata et al. (“Shibata”, US 2021/0242496 A1).
Regarding claims 6-7, Fan and Takahashi are applied as in the rejection above.
Fan and Takahashi do not expressly teach controlling the particle size and reaction rate.
However, Shibata is also directed to a sulfide solid electrolyte (title) and teaches pulverizing the electrolyte precursor ([0089]). A solid electrolyte having a small particle diameter is obtained, and the reduction of ionic conductivity can be suppressed ([0089]). Shibata teaches many different types of pulverizers, including an ultrasonic pulverizer and ultrasonic homogenizer ([0095]). Shibata teaches an average particle diameter can be determined according to the desire ([0098]) but also give examples of 0.01 to 50 microns ([0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to control the particle size and thereby control the reaction rate to suppress the reduction of ionic conductivity ([0089]), as taught by Shibata.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are either moot in view of the new grounds of rejection or are not found persuasive.
Applicant has incorporated claim 3 into claim 1 and has added a limitation pertaining to ionic conductivity. The new grounds of rejection address both limitations.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that the references fail to disclose any technical feature pertaining to the wet solid-state electrolyte synthesis method by controlling the ratio of halogen elements. This is not a limitation found in the claims.
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 DANIEL H. LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2548. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
DANIEL H. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/DANIEL H LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights