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
Claims 1-8 were rejected in the Office Action mailed on 03/12/2026.
Applicant filed a response and amended claim 1.
Claim 1-8 are currently pending in the application and are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
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 1-8 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the peak Al being approximated by a Gaussian function and the peak A2 being approximated by an asymmetric double sigmoidal function”. The specification suggests multiple fitting approaches could be use such as “using appropriate software or the like…examples include spreadsheet software Excel”. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art may not know with reasonable certainty whether a given peak has been “approximated” in a manner require by the claim, particularly if different fitting methods produce different IA2/IA1 and WA2/WA1 values. Therefore, the limitation fails to reasonably apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the claimed invention. The claim does not specify the degree of approximation, fitting criteria, convergence criteria or acceptable error range for determining whether a diffraction peak is “approximated” by the functions. Consequently, it is unclear whether different fitting methods, software programs, or fitting parameters would yield different values for IA2/IA1 and WA2/WA1, such as the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Clarification or amendment to the claim is required.
Regarding dependent claims 2-8, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Utsuno et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0140314).
Regarding claims 1 and 4-5, Utsuno teaches a solid electrolyte (i.e., sulfide solid electrolyte) (paragraph [0001]) comprising a lithium (Li) element, a phosphorus (P) element, a sulfur (S) element, and a halogen (X) element (i.e., chlorine (Cl) and bromine (Br) (paragraph [0032]),
wherein the halogen (X) element contains at least a bromine (Br) element (paragraph [0032]),
the solid electrolyte has a crystalline phase having an argyrodite-type crystal structure (paragraph [0034]),
the solid electrolyte has a peak A in a range of 2Ɵ = 25.2±0.5 in an X-ray diffraction pattern measured by an X-ray diffractometer (XRD) using CuKα1 as a radiation source (paragraph [0032]-[0035], [0173]-[0185]).
Utsuno does not explicitly articulate the specifics of separating peak A into two peaks (A1 and A2) through waveform separation and determining the ratios of the peak intensities and half-value width as recited in the instant claims however, separation and peak fitting are well-known analytical techniques used to resolve overlapping peaks in X-ray diffraction.
Because Utsuno teaches an identical solid electrolyte composition (i.e., lithium (Li) element, a phosphorus (P) element, a sulfur (S) element, and a halogen (X) element) and crystal structure (i.e., argyrodite-type crystal structure) to the one claimed, the diffraction pattern necessarily contains the same underlying peak structure. The recited ratios of intensities and half-value widths therefore represent properties that would be expected in the material of Utsuno.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply routine peak separation techniques to the diffraction peak taught by Utsuno in order to analyze the peak profile and obtain relative peak intensities and widths. Determining such analytical parameters amounts to the discovery or quantification of properties of a known composition and does not render the claimed composition patentable. In fact, Utsuno recognizes calculating parameters for argyrodite type crystal structure by manually fitting half-width and intensity peaks (paragraph [0202]). Accordingly, since the solid electrolyte composition is identical (i.e., lithium (Li) element, a phosphorus (P) element, a sulfur (S) element, and a halogen (X) element) and exhibits identical properties (i.e., a peak A in a range of 2Ɵ = 25.2±0.5), it would have been obvious to arrive at the claimed subject matter regarding waveform separation and determining the ratios of the peak intensities and half-value width.
As to the limitation “the peak Al being approximated by a Gaussian function and the peak A2 being approximated by an asymmetric double sigmoidal function”, since the prior art teaches the same material, then the use of a Gaussian fitting and asymmetric double sigmoidal fitting to determine the claimed ratios would generally be considered a routine analytical technique that a person of ordinary skill in the are would have employed. The recitation merely specifies a known mathematical fitting procedure for analyzing XRD data. The specification itself indicates that such fitting may be performed using conventional and commercially available software such as Excel. Employing a known curve-fitting function and conventional optimization software to deconvolute overlapping diffraction peaks and determine peak intensities and width would have been a routine matter within the ordinary skill of a scientist performing XRD analysis. Therefore, the recited “approximation” methodology would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Utsuno teaches the molar ratio of the bromine (Br) element to the halogen (x) (i.e., Cl) is 0.6 (i.e., 0.6/1) (paragraph [0226]).
Regarding claim 3, Utsuno teaches a is Li/P and b is S/P (paragraph [0049]). Utsuno teaches b = a – (0.5 to 1.5) and 5.0 ≤ a ≤ 7.5 (paragraph 0049]) therefore, 3.5 ≤ b ≤ 7.0 which overlaps the claimed ratio for S/P. Further Utsuno teaches d is Br/P and is 0.15 or more and 1.6 or less (paragraph [0045]) which overlaps the claimed range. It is noted that Utsuno differ in the exact same range as recited in the instant claim however, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the Utsuno range overlap the instant claimed ranges and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It has been held in the courts that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, Utsuno teaches an electrode material mixture comprising the solid electrolyte as set forth in claim 1 and an active material (paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 7, Utsuno teaches solid electrolyte layer comprising the solid electrolyte as set forth in claim 1 (paragraph [0110]).
Regarding claim 8, Utsuno teaches a battery comprising a solid electrolyte layer and the solid electrolyte as set forth in claim 1 (paragraph [0110]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments filed on 06/10/2026 have been considered but are moot because they are directed to the new amendments, which describes how the peaks are separated by an “approximation”. The new amendments have been fully addressed above taking a different approach of the prior art of record. In addition, the new amendments have prompted an indefinite issue, which have been presented above. Moreover, Applicant argue that the solid electrolyte of Utsuno cannot exhibit the peak after waveform separation because it is produced by a different method. Such argument is moot because the claim is directed to the product, not the method of manufacturing the same. In addition, the claims do not specify which mechanism is used to produce the crystalline structure and the variations resulted in the process employed.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Arena et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0291250). Arena teaches the use of Gaussian and sigmoidal fitting in XRD (paragraph [0303], [0390]).
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 CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, TONG GUO can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights