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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 11 is newly added. Claims 1-11 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 & 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takahashi (US 2022/0006117 A1).
Regarding claims 1-6 & 8-11, Takahashi teaches a battery ([0134]) comprising: a positive electrode layer comprising an electrode material mixture including a solid electrolyte and an active material ([0143]-[0144]); a negative electrode layer comprising an electrode material mixture including a solid electrolyte and an active material ([0145]-[0146]); and a solid electrolyte layer including a solid electrolyte provided between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer ([0134] & [0137]), wherein the solid electrolyte has a argyrodite-type crystal structure and comprises Li, P, S and at least one halogen element including Cl such that a molar ratio of X/P is greater than 1 ([0018], [0048], [0072], [0075], [0115]-[0117] & [0149]). Takahashi further teaches a method for producing the solid electrolyte, the method comprising the steps of: obtaining a raw material composition by mixing a Li source, a P source, a S source and a halogen (X) source ([0086]-[0096] & [0149]); and calcining the raw material composition at a temperature of 500°C to 700°C for 2 to 6 hours ([0103]-[0104] & [0150]). similarly to the presently claimed invention ([0028]-[0032] & [0039] of instant specification). To the extent that paragraphs [0039]-[0062] of Takahashi do not fairly teach or suggest the features: 1) the solid electrolyte having a peak P1 and a peak P2 when a diffraction pattern in at least any (claim 1) or each (claim 2) of a range of 2θ=25.6 ± 0.8°, a range of 2θ =30.2 ± 0.8°, and a range of 2θ =31.6 ± 0.8° is subjected to peak separation and the peaks P1 and P2 being derived from different phases; and 2) wherein an angle difference Δ2θ between P1 and P2 is 0.04° or more (claim 5), it is noted that Takahashi teaches a solid electrolyte having substantially the same composition and made through substantially the same process as that of the present invention as noted above. Accordingly, Takahashi’s solid electrolyte would be expected to inherently possess the properties recited in claims 1-2 and 5. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).” See MPEP 2112.01 I. Takahashi is silent as to the solid electrolyte being produced by calcining a raw material composition in an inert atmosphere at a temperature of 500C to 700C (claim 11). However, it is noted that the above limitation constitutes a product-by-process limitation. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). See MPEP 2113 I. In this case, since the instant specification notes that the solid electrolyte of the present invention, as described in claims 1 & 11, can be produced by method in which a raw material composition is calcined under an inert gas atmosphere or a hydrogen gas containing atmosphere ([0006] & [0037]). Therefore, whether the calcination is performed under an inert gas atmosphere or a hydrogen sulfide atmosphere, the solid electrolyte of claims 1 & 11 would be expected to be obtained since paragraph [0037] of the instant specification discloses that the solid electrolyte of the present invention can be produced by performing the calcination in either atmospheres.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Minami (US 2020/0313234 A1).
Regarding claims 1-11, Minami teaches a battery ([0072]) comprising: a positive electrode layer comprising an electrode material mixture including a solid electrolyte and an active material ([0058]-[0062]); a negative electrode layer comprising an electrode material mixture including a solid electrolyte and an active material ([0065]-[0068]); and a solid electrolyte layer including a solid electrolyte provided between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer ([0063]-[0064]), wherein the solid electrolyte has a argyrodite-type crystal structure and comprises Li, P, S and at least one halogen element X including Cl such that a molar ratio of X/P is greater than 1 ([0033], [0038], [0044], [0088] & [0090]). Minami further teaches a method for producing the solid electrolyte, the method comprising the steps of: obtaining a raw material composition by mixing a Li source, a P source, a S source and a halogen (X) source ([0073]-[0081]); and calcining the raw material composition at a temperature of 480°C to 800°C in an inert gas atmosphere for 2 to 5 hours ([0082]-[0084]) similarly to the presently claimed invention ([0028]-[0032] & [0039] of instant specification). Therefore, when Minami’s calcination step is performed at a temperature of 500C to 700C, which is encompassed within the range of 480C to 800C disclosed in Minami above, Minami’s solid electrolyte would be expected to inherently possess the following claimed properties in view of the substantially identical methods of producing Minami’s solid electrolyte and the solid electrolyte of the present claims: 1) the solid electrolyte having a peak P1 and a peak P2 when a diffraction pattern in at least any (claim 1) or each (claim 2) of a range of 2θ=25.6 ± 0.8°, a range of 2θ =30.2 ± 0.8°, and a range of 2θ =31.6 ± 0.8° is subjected to peak separation and the peaks P1 and P2 being derived from different phases; and 2) wherein an angle difference Δ2θ between P1 and P2 is 0.04° or more (claim 5). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).” See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments that Takahashi does not fairly teach or suggest the subject matter of claim 1, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, applicant argues that Takahashi does not fairly teach or suggest a solid electrolyte made through substantially the same process. Applicant further notes that the solid electrolyte in Takahashi is produced by calcining under a hydrogen sulfide atmosphere whereas the method of forming the presently claimed solid electrolyte performs the calcination step under an inert atmosphere such as nitrogen. However, contrary to applicant’s assertions, the instant specification notes that the solid electrolyte of the present invention can be produced preferably using a method in which a raw material composition obtained by mixing raw materials is calcined in an inert atmosphere or a hydrogen sulfide gas-containing atmosphere ([0037]). Furthermore, the instant specification notes that “the present invention provides a solid electrolyte containing: a lithium (Li) element; a phosphorus (P) element; a sulfur (S) element; and an X element, where X represents at least one halogen element, wherein the solid electrolyte has a peak P1 and a peak P2 when, in an X-ray diffraction pattern obtained by measuring the solid electrolyte with an X-ray diffractometer (XRD) using CuKα1 rays and CuKα2 rays, a diffraction pattern in at least any one of a range of 2θ=25.6±0.8°, a range of 2θ=30.2±0.8°, and a range of 2θ=31.6±0.8° is subjected to peak separation, and the peak P1 and the peak P2 are derived from different phases” ([0006]). Accordingly, the method described in paragraph [0037] of the instant specification in which a calcination step performed using either one of an inert atmosphere and a hydrogen sulfide gas-containing atmosphere would be expected to produce the solid electrolyte as described in paragraph [0006]. Therefore, the properties recited in claims 1-2 & 5 of the present invention would be expected to be shared by Takahashi’s solid electrolyte since Takahashi teaches a method of producing the solid electrolyte which is substantially identical to the method of forming the solid electrolyte of the present invention. Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 1-11 stand rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm (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, BARBARA GILLIAM can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights