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 .
Drawings
The Drawings filed 18 July 2023 are approved by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner and an initialed copy is attached.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of the certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Citation Notation
The following citations are made for the convenience of the reader:
Citations to PG publications are made to paragraph number under the ¶ format. Citations to other publications made under the format “ col 1/2” or pp 1 are directed to column and line number or to a page - whichever is appropriate. It is noted that any reference to a figure or a table is also directed to any accompanying text in the specification or the document. Notwithstanding those citations, the reference(s) is (are) relied upon for the teachings as a whole.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koishizaki (JP2019145489A, cited in the IDS).
Claims 1, 5-9: Koishizaki discloses a method comprising mixing a Li2S, NH4F and additional phosphorous and lithium compounds and providing a heat treatment such as at 110 degrees C (abs, 20-62 and embodiments). The Koishizaki reference discloses the claimed invention with the Li2S, NH4F and additional phosphorous and lithium compounds but does not disclose the method with the claimed elements with enough specificity to anticipate the claimed invention. Nevertheless, given that Koishizaki discloses the Li2S, NH4F and additional phosphorous and lithium compounds, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the chemical art at the time of the invention to utilize any of the taught components since Koishizaki teaches each one. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pursue the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success since the reference is directed to a similar field of endeavor. It is also noted that the fact that many steps and/or components are disclosed would not have made any of them, such as the Li2S, NH4F and additional phosphorous and lithium compounds, less obvious. Here, Koishizaki discloses each of the claimed components and/or steps and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection of the claimed components/steps would be repugnant to a skilled artisan. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143. It is noted that the lithium sulfide is expected since Koishizaki the same starting material and the same experimental conditions.
Claim 2: Koishizaki discloses the inert gas and reduced atmosphere conditions (embodiments).
Claim 3: The Koishizaki reference discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the claimed loading range. It is noted that the claimed loading range is construed as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. Given that the Koishizaki reference discloses a similar method, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed range through process optimization such as varying the loading amounts and the mixing conditions, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize known variables, i.e. the loading amounts and the mixing conditions, since the reference also discloses a similar end-product. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection or optimization of the claimed components/steps would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Claim 4: Regarding the claimed composite structural feature, if a prior art reference teaches the substantially identical structure/material/product, it would be reasonable that the same function and/or property would be imparted or exhibited. See MPEP 2112.01. Here, Koishizaki discloses the same components and experimental conditions – thus the same composite structural features are expected. Applicant is welcomed to provide any evidence that the disclosed material is exceedingly different from the claimed material - thus the claimed properties would inevitably not be present.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Subramaniam discloses a process of making a solid electrolyte by mixing a Li salt, NH4F and a phosphorous compound and providing a thermal treatment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuthers can be reached at 571.272.7026. 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.
/TRI V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764