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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-8, 18, and 19 and Species I, claim 2, in the reply filed on 06/17/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Within Group I, claims 3, 18, and 19 are withdrawn as claims 18 and 19 depend from non-elected claim 3. Currently, claims 1, 2, and 4-8 are pending.
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, 2, and 4-8, 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.
Regarding claim 1, the instant claim requires a sulfide-based solid electrolyte in which a metal or metalloid is doped into a claimed Li2S- P2S5-LiX or Li2S- P2S5-LiX-LiX’- type sulfide based solid electrolyte system. It is not clear from the claim language how the metal or metalloid doped into the system is to be included. In view of the specification, the X and X’ are taught to be the metal or metalloid. For the purpose of examination, examiner will consider the X or the X’ included in the electrolyte to be the metal or metalloid. Clarification in the claim language is requested.
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, 5, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minami et al (JP 2018133227).
Regarding claim 1, Minami teaches a sulfide solid electrolyte prepared by adding Bi2S3 to a material comprising Li2S, P2S5, LiI and LiBr and modifying the material composition. Minami also teaches a method for preparing a sulfide solid electrolyte comprising the steps of mixing a material composition comprising Li2S, P2S5, LiI by means of a ball mill, adding Bi2S3 to the mixture and mixing by the ball mill, and ultimately treating the mixture at high temperature so as to obtain a sulfide solid electrolyte (abstract, claim 1). This is considered to meet the instantly claimed Li2S- P2S5-LiX-LiX’ wherein X is I and X’ is Br.
Regarding claim 5, Minami teaches LiI and LiBr (abstract and claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Minami teaches the sulfide-based solid electrolyte as discussed above wherein the material is the same as the instantly claimed material. As the electrolyte of Minami is materially the same as the instantly claimed electrolyte, similar peaks would be expected if tested under the same conditions.
Regarding claim 8, Minami teaches the sulfide-based solid electrolyte as discussed above wherein the material is the same as the instantly claimed material. As the electrolyte of Minami is materially the same as the instantly claimed electrolyte, similar peaks would be expected if tested under the same conditions.
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) 2, 4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minami et al (JP 2018133227).
Regarding claim 2, Minami teaches the sulfide-based solid electrolyte as discussed above.
Minami does not explicitly teach the electrolyte represented by Chemical Formula 1, as claimed.
Minami teaches the solid electrolyte being prepared using 75 mol% Li2S; 25 mol% P2S5; 10-35 mol% of LiI and LiBr; and 0.5-5 mol% Bi2S3 (0014-0015; 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to obtain the instantly claimed chemical formula given the components of Minami are similar to the instantly claimed invention and therefore a similar chemical formula would be expected without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, Minami teaches Bi2S3 (abstract, claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Minami teaches the sulfide-based solid electrolyte as discussed above.
Minami does not explicitly teach the electrolyte being represented by Chemical Formula 1 with 0<c≤0.3, as claimed.
Minami teaches the solid electrolyte being prepared using 75 mol% Li2S; 25 mol% P2S5; 10-35 mol% of LiI and LiBr; and 0.5-5 mol% Bi2S3 (0014-0015; 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to obtain the instantly claimed chemical formula given the components of Minami are similar to the instantly claimed invention and therefore a similar chemical formula would be expected without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A SLIFKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/SARAH A. SLIFKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759 August 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights