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 are currently pending in the application and are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
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.
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.
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]).
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Miyashita et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0352916). Miyashita teaches a solid electrolyte (i.e., sulfide-based solid electrolyte) comprising a lithium (Li) element, a phosphorus (P) element, a sulfur (S) element, and a halogen (X) element (abstract).
Correspondence
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