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, claim 1, in the reply filed on 2/18/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the Applicant notes that claims of the International Application have been indicated to possess novelty and inventive step. Applicant further submits that the foregoing reasoning is conclusory and does not include sufficient consideration of patentability, taking into account the scope of the claims and application of the teachings of the cited reference thereto, to carry the burden of establishing the lack of a special technical feature. Applicant further notes that the RR asserts that claims 2-8 are directed to a product, when claims 2-8 are plainly method claims depending from elected method claim 1. For this reason alone, the RR must be withdrawn. Accordingly, and for the reasons presented above, applicant submits that the Office has failed to meet the burden necessary in order to sustain the requirement for restriction. Applicant therefore requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the requirement for restriction.
This is not found persuasive because while 37 CFR 1.475(b)(13) states that a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn to a product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the product, and a use of this product, this does not preclude that there is lack of unity of invention under PCT Rule 13.1 and 13.2 (see also MPEP 1850 II).
This is not found persuasive because the instant application is a national stage entry filed under 35 U.S.C. 371 and is therefore not subject to US restriction practice but rather subject to lack of unity practice, see MPEP 1893.03(d). It is noted that undue search burden is not a criterion in lack of unity analysis. The test is whether or not special technical features can be established. It is noted that inventions listed as Groups I-VI do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features as set forth in page 5 of the previous Office Action.
Therefore, given that the Examiner has properly established that Groups I-VI lack unity as set forth in page 5 of the Office Action mailed 12/18/26, it is the Examiner's position that the restriction is proper.
Examiner would like the point out that she misidentified the claims for each Group.
The Groups are updated to be as follows:
Group I, claims 1-8 drawn to a method
Group II, claim 9, drawn to a method
Group III, claims 10-11, drawn to a product.
Group IV, claim 12, drawn to a product.
Group V, claim 13, drawn to a product
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/18/26.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-8 are objected.
Examiner suggests amending “The modified sulfide solid electrolyte producing method” to “The method of producing a modified sulfide solid electrolyte” in claims 2-8.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakano et al (JP2019197713A, English translation).
Sakano teaches a method for producing a cathode mixture.
Sakano, paragraph 6 of the English translation, teaches a method for producing a cathode mixture for an all-solid-state lithium-sulfur battery having a high reversible discharge capacity.
Sakano, paragraph 13 of the English translation, teaches a mechanical milling treatment is performed on a starting material mixture containing a positive electrode active material containing Li2S, solid electrolytes, and a conductive aid to form a composite.
Sakano, paragraph 15 of the English translation, teaches the ratio of the positive electrode active material in the raw material mixture is not particularly limited.
Sakano, paragraph 16 of the English translation, teaches Li2S/P2S5 can be the solid electrolyte. The ratio of the solid electrolyte in the raw material mixture is not particularly limited.
It 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 to choose the amount of solid electrolyte and the amount of the positive electrode active material containing Li2S to obtain a high reversible discharge capacity.
Regarding claim 2, Sakano, paragraph 16 of the English translation, teaches Li2S/P2S5 can be the solid electrolyte.
Regarding claim 4, Sakano, paragraph 35 of the English translation, teaches solid electrolytes (75Li2S and 25P2S5) were obtained.
Regarding claim 5, Sakano, paragraph 19 of the English translation, teaches the mechanical milling treatment in the process S1 may be wet mechanical milling or dry mechanical milling. The mechanical milling treatment can be performed with, for example, a ball mill apparatus, preferably a planetary ball mill apparatus.
Claims 3, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakano et al (JP2019197713A, English translation) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Yanagi et al (US20160036054).
Although Sakano teaches solid electrolytes, Sakano does not teach the electrolyte containing a halogen atom.
Yanagi teaches a composite material.
Yanagi, paragraph 44 of the PGPUB, teaches for the solid electrolyte, in addition to Li2S and P2S5, a halide may further be added. As the halide, Lil, LiBr, LiCl or the like can be given. As the solid electrolyte to the raw material of which a halide is added, a sulfide-based solid electrolyte containing Li, P, S and I, a sulfide-based solid electrolyte containing Li, P, S and Br and a sulfide-based solid electrolyte containing Li, P, S and Cl can be given.
It 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 to incorporate a halide as taught by Yanagi into the solid electrolyte as taught by Sakano as this is one common type of a solid electrolyte used in batteries.
Regarding claims 6 and 8, Yagani, paragraph 47 of the PGPUB, teaches as specific examples of the solid electrolyte in the glass ceramic state, a solid electrolyte having a Li7P3S11 crystalline structure can be given. As other specific examples, a Li3PS4 crystalline structure, a Li4P2S6 crystalline structure, a Li7PS6 crystalline structure, and a Li4-xGe1-xPxS4-based thiosilicone-based II crystalline structure (see Kanno et al, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 148(7) A742-746(2001)) can be given.
It 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 to incorporate a halide as taught by Yanagi into the solid electrolyte as taught by Sakano as this is one common type of a solid electrolyte used in batteries.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakano et al (JP2019197713A, English translation) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Tan et al (CN111952560, English translation).
Although Sakano teaches a mechanical milling treatment is performed on a starting material mixture containing a positive electrode active material containing Li2S, solid electrolytes, and a conductive aid to form a composite, Sakano does not teach the mixture comprising a complexing agent.
Tan teaches a composite positive electrode.
Tan, abstract, teaches mixing the raw material for preparing the solid electrolyte with the complexing agent in the solvent.
Tan teaches the mol ratio of the total mol number of the metal ion in the raw material for preparing the solid electrolyte and the mol number of the complexing agent is 1: 1-1: 2, such as 1: 1, 1: 1.2, 1: 1.4, 1: 1.6, 1: 1.8, or 1: 2 and so on. In the invention, if the total mol number of the metal ion is too high relative to the complexing agent, it will cause the solid electrolyte to form larger particles, cannot be uniformly coated on the surface of the non-sequential rock salt positive electrode material; if the total mol number of the metal ion is too low relative to the complexing agent, the carbon content in the precursor is too high, blocking the solid electrolyte and the surface of the non-sequential rock salt positive electrode material to form good contact.
It 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 to incorporate a complexing agent as taught by Tan into the starting mixture as taught by Sakano to ensure a uniform coating and good contact while coating the mixture on a substrate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20100261304 teaches a solution based process for making inorganic materials.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFANIE J COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5836. The examiner can normally be reached 10am- 6pm M-F.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571) 270-5713. 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.
/STEFANIE J COHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1732 3/11/26