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 1-17 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, line 6, “one or more elements of Groups 2 to 15 and Group 17” is unclear and renders the claim definite. It is unclear whether one element from Groups 2 to 15 would be sufficient to meet the limitation of the claim or if one from each Group would be necessary.
In claim 1, line 10, “the chalcogen element” lacks sufficient antecedent basis as it was referred to as “a chalcogenide element” above. The examiner suggests using consistent language.
In claim 1, last 2 lines, “the alkali metal ion conductive chalcogenide-based solid electrolyte precursor powder” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
In claim 5, “the element B” and “the element Y” lack sufficient antecedent basis. Claim 5 is dependent on claim 2.
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.
Claims 1-5 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, 3-4, 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, 3-4, 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]).
-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 1-5 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.
Conclusion
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