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
Claims 7-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 8, 2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu et al. ("Revealing the relation between the structure, Li-ion conductivity and solid state battery performance of the argyrodite Li6PS5Br solid electrolyte," Journal of Materials Chemistry A 5, 21178-21188, September 2017).
Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses a solid electrolyte comprising lithium, phosphorus, sulfur, and a halogen (bromine) with an argyrodite crystal structure (Yu Abstract); a crystallite size of 15 nm (Yu p. 10, line 3), which falls within the range of the instant claim; and an intensity Ia nearly indistinguishable from the background (Yu Fig. 1a), so Ia/Ib is approximately 0, which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, there are no significant peaks above the background at or near 21.3° (Yu Fig. 1a), so IC/I0 is approximately 1, which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, Yu discloses an electrode material mixture comprising an active material (Li2S) and the solid electrolyte (Yu p. 5, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, Yu discloses a solid electrolyte layer comprising the solid electrolyte (Yu p. 5, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 11, Yu discloses a battery with positive and negative electrode layers around a solid electrolyte layer comprising the solid electrolyte (Yu p. 5, last paragraph).
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Yu does not disclose any particular brightness. However, Applicant has indicated that annealing and crushing argyrodite electrolyte material significantly decreases brightness (Table 1 of the instant specification). As the material of Yu is annealed and crushed (Yu Experimental), the brightness of the material is assumed to similarly decrease, including to values within the range of the instant claim. 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select an appropriate annealing and milling time and, therefore, the brightness of the material.
Regarding claim 4, Yu does not teach any particular particle size. Yu teaches that decreasing particle size enhances ionic conductivity (Yu p. 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to decrease the particle size, including to values within the range of the instant claim, to increase ionic conductivity.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Patel et al. ("Tunable Lithium-Ion Transport in Mixed-Halide Argyrodites Li6-xPS5-xClBrx: An Unusual Compositional Space," Chemistry of Materials 33(4), pp. 1435-1443, February 2021).
Regarding claim 5, Yu does not teach the claimed X:P or S:P ratios. Yu discloses an argyrodite solid electrolyte of the formula Li6PS5Br (Yu Abstract). Patel is directed to an improved argyrodite solid electrolyte (Patel Abstract). Patel teaches that halogen substitution in argyrodite Li6PS5X electrolytes improves ionic conductivity (Patel Introduction) with peak performance for Li5.3PS4.3ClBr0.7 (Patel Fig. 6b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to substitute the electrolyte of Patel for the electrolyte of Yu to improve conductivity.
The electrolyte of Patel has ratios X:P of 1.7 and S:P of 4.3, each of which falls within the ranges of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, Yu does not teach the use of both Cl and Br. Yu discloses an argyrodite solid electrolyte of the formula Li6PS5Br (Yu Abstract). Patel teaches that halogen substitution in argyrodite Li6PS5X electrolytes improves ionic conductivity (Patel Introduction) with peak performance for Li5.3PS4.3ClBr0.7 (Patel Fig. 6b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to substitute the electrolyte of Patel for the electrolyte of Yu to improve conductivity.
The electrolyte of Patel includes both Cl and Br.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Miyashita et al. (US 2016/0156064 A1) is directed to a Li7-xPS6-xHax solid electrolyte.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/J.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights