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 .
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 1-25 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 requires a sulfide solid electrolyte comprising a crystal structure where divalent element A and halogen element X “make a combination” such that a compound A05X including the divalent element A and the halogen element X is higher in hydration energy than LiI. Here, the phrase “make a combination” is unclear as to whether the claimed sulfide solid electrolyte must include a chemical compound comprising A0.5X. Notably, this compound alone cannot be the sulfide solid electrolyte as there is no representation of sulfide. Moreover, the claim requires the presence of nitrogen but there is no representation of nitrogen in the compound. Thus, the compound itself is unclear in its representation of the claimed electrolyte. The instant specification states that the solid sulfide compound is not to be considered limited to any sulfide solid electrolyte with the compound A0.5X used as a raw material [0042] which appears to indicate that the claimed electrolyte may include the compound A0.5N as a raw material and not an electrolyte having the compound as a formula. The breadth of the claim is extensive in that there is no representation of the sulfur and nitrogen in the compound at all and no requirement of the final formula of the electrolyte. Contrast claim 1 with claim 19 which requires the electrolyte be represented by a formula which clearly represents sulfur and nitrogen in relation to the compound recited in claim 1. While the compound A0.5X is found in the formula of claim 19, claim 1 is not so clearly worded as to require the electrolyte to be represented by the claimed compound. Thus, claim 1 is interpreted as a sulfide solid electrolyte where A0.5X may be in the final compound or may have been added as a raw material as the claim may be reasonably interpreted with either construction.
Claim 13 further requires “a sulfur element”. However, if claim 1 is to a sulfide solid electrolyte, a sulfur element must already be present even though there is no clear representation thereof in the claim other than in the preamble. It is suggested to positively recite the sulfur element in claim 1 in some capacity and refer to “the sulfur element” in claim 13 rather than “a sulfur element”. The use of “a sulfur element” in claim 13 suggests that there is no requirement for sulfur in claim 1 which would indeed render claim 1 unclear.
Claim 19 recites Formula 1 and includes
PNG
media_image1.png
30
52
media_image1.png
Greyscale
at the end of the formula. This notation is unclear as to its meaning. As best understood, it appears to indicate the formula number, but the record is not clear.
Claim 20 requires a ratio of B to A is less than 0.5. This range includes zero. Since the claim requires B to be present, the range cannot include zero. It is suggested to require the ratio to be more than zero and less than 0.5.
Claim 21 requires that there be substantially no divalent element B other than the divalent element A. However, claim 18 allows for the presence of element M which includes divalent elements in the selection. It is not clear if “no divalent element B” is limited to those elements listed as possible divalent elements B or if the claim is intended to preclude the presence of any divalent element other than divalent element A.
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.
Claims 1-10, 14-17, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112740458 (Fukushima) in view of US 2022/0173430 (Matsuda) (cited on IDS filed 11/7/2023).
Regarding claims 1-10, Fukushima discloses a sulfide solid electrolyte comprising elements P, S, N and elements A and M. M represents a list of divalent elements and a raw material M η X σ (wherein, η = 1 or 2, σ is an integer of 1 to 10 is added to other compounds to form the electrolyte. X represents a halide of the element M, and so on. Regarding the notation of A0.5X, this is considered the same as AX2. Applicant discloses in Table 1 the crystal structure ID for the compounds including Ca0.5I which when looked up by the project number reveals that the crystal structure is referenced as CaI2. Thus, the formula M η X σ (wherein, η = 1 or 2, σ is an integer of 1 to 10 overlaps with the claimed compound formula A0.5X when rewritten as AX2. Fukushima does not disclose providing a metal halide having a higher hydration energy than LiI.
Matsuda discloses a sulfide solid electrolyte comprising lithium sulfide, disphosphorus pentasulfide and metal halogen compounds such as calcium iodide (example 6), and zinc iodide (example 30). Matsuda discloses the addition of calcium iodide as CaI2 and a formula where the constituents include Ca0.03I0.06 which achieves the same ratio as claimed and similarly for ZnI2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a metal halogen compound as used by Matsuda to provide the metal halogen compound in Fukushima with a reasonable expectation of providing the halogen to the solid electrolyte material as well as utilizing a metal element which is demonstrably used in a similar sulfide solid electrolyte for providing high conductivity at higher temperatures (Matsuda [0015]). The materials Ca2I and Zn2I are both indicated in the instant specification as meeting the required property of hydration energy being higher than that of LiI.
Regarding claim 14, Fukushima discloses the ratio of X (halogen) in the composition to P in the composition is 0.180 to 1.30 in terms of molar ratio (claim 8).
Regarding claim 15, Fukushima discloses a lower limit of ion conductivity of the sulfide solid electrolyte is 1.0 mS/cm (10-3S/cm) and preferably 1.5 mS/cm.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Fukushima illustrates diffraction peaks as shown in Figure 3 which appear to overlap with the claimed peaks. Moreover, Fukushima discloses peaks at 19.1 +/- 0.5 which overlaps 19.9 +/- 0.5 and 29.1 +/- 0.5 which overlaps 29.3 +/- 0.5. As shown in Figure 3, the peak around 20 is the second highest peak for several examples.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Fukushima and Matsuda indicate that more than one metal may be added, thus obviating the use of more than one of the metals from the listings provided. The examples relied upon utilize one metal.
Regarding claim 22, as noted above, the materials comprising divalent element/s, at least one halogen, and nitrogen, not to mention sulfur and phosphorus, are combined to form the electrolyte. As explained in the 112(b) rejection above, the use of a divalent/halogen compound as the starting material is seen to meet the claim.
Regarding claims 23-25, Fukushima discloses using the electrolyte in a secondary battery and Matsuda discloses the use of the solid electrolyte in power storage devices and electronic devices such as EVs and HEVs [0205]. It would have been obvious to use the electrolyte of Fukushima in power storage devices and vehicles as suggested by Matsuda with a reasonable expectation of success based upon the disclosure of its utility.
Claims 1-9, 15, 18, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 106252719 (Hashimoto) in view of US 2021/0249682 (Morinaka).
Regarding claims 1-9, Hashimoto discloses a sulfide solid electrolyte comprising CaI2 [0030]. Hashimoto discloses that the sulfide electrolyte comprises Li2S and may preferably contain element A (P, Si, Ge, Al or B) and S and gives specific examples of using Li2S in combination with P2S5 and LiI. Based upon the evidence provided in the instant specification CaI2 has a hydration energy of 9.3 meV/atom which is higher than LiI at -11.5 meV/atom (see Table 3). Regarding the notation of A0.5X, this is considered the same as AX2. Applicant discloses in Table 1 the crystal structure ID for the compounds including Ca0.5I which when looked up by the project number reveals that the crystal structure is referenced as CaI2.
Hashimoto does not disclose the presence of nitrogen in the electrolyte. Morinaka discloses a solid electrolyte such as sulfide solid electrolyte containing lithium, phosphorus, sulfur, and halogen (abstract, [0012]). Morinaka discloses that substitution of part of the phosphorus element with another pnictogen (nitrogen) element will improve ion conductivity [0012]. It would have been obvious to replace some of the phosphorus with nitrogen to improve ion conductivity.
Regarding claim 15, Hashimoto discloses that the lithium-ion conductivity is 1x10-3S/cm or more (1 mS/cm) [0097] at 25C.
Regarding claim 18, Hashimoto discloses an ionic conductor including Si, Al or B may be present [0095].
Regarding claim 21, no other divalent is required (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 22, as noted above, the materials comprising divalent element/s, at least one halogen, and nitrogen, not to mention sulfur and phosphorus, are combined to form the electrolyte. As explained in the 112(b) rejection above, the use of a divalent/halogen compound as the starting material is seen to meet the claim.
Regarding claims 23-25, Hashimoto discloses using the electrolyte in a battery. Morinaka discloses the use of a sulfide solid electrolyte in a lithium secondary battery. It would have been obvious to use the sulfide solid electrolyte of Hashimoto in a lithium secondary battery based upon the materials in Hashimoto having high lithium-ion conductivity and used in a battery. Moreover, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use the battery in any electronic device that utilizes lithium batteries such as automobiles which are well known in the field.
Claims 1-14, 16, 18, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0173430 (Matsuda) (cited on IDS filed 11/7/2023) in view of US 2021/0249682 (Morinaka).
Regarding claims 1-10, Matsuda discloses a sulfide solid electrolyte comprising lithium sulfide, disphosphorus pentasulfide and calcium iodide (example 6), and zinc iodide (example 30). Matsuda discloses the addition of calcium iodide as CaI2 and a formula where the constituents include Ca0.03I0.06 which achieves the same ratio as claimed and similarly for ZnI2. The materials Ca2I and Zn2I are both indicated in the instant specification as meeting the required property of hydration energy being higher than that of LiI.
Matsuda does not disclose the presence of nitrogen in the electrolyte. Morinaka discloses a solid electrolyte such as sulfide solid electrolyte containing lithium, phosphorus, sulfur, and halogen (abstract, [0012]). Morinaka discloses that substitution of part of the phosphorus element with another pnictogen (nitrogen) element will improve ion conductivity [0012]. It would have been obvious to replace some of the phosphorus in the electrolyte of Matsuda with nitrogen to improve ion conductivity.
Regarding claim 11, Example 6 results in a molar ratio of Ca/P of 0.0306 (0.03/0.98). Note that substitution of some phosphorus with nitrogen may be minimal and would result in an increase in this ratio which would still meet the claimed range.
Regarding claim 12, Example 6 results in a molar ratio of Li/P of 3 (2.94/0.98). Note that substitution of some phosphorus with nitrogen may be minimal and would result in an increase in this ratio which would still meet the claimed range.
Regarding claim 13, Example 6 results in a molar ratio of S/P of 4 (3.92/0.98). Note that substitution of some phosphorus with nitrogen may be minimal and would result in an increase in this ratio which would still meet the claimed range.
Regarding claim 14, Matsuda discloses that halogen atoms may be in a range of from 0.003-0.1 mol with respect to 1 mol of Li atom [0048] and that in this case the molar ratio of P and S may deviate from the definitions of the general formula and that in general a ratio among P, S and X (halogen) may deviate from the given formulae as long as the performance is not deteriorated. Thus, the relative concentrations of P and X (halogen) are considered optimizable and may deviate from the definitions of the general formulae in accordance with the ratios of anions. Absent a showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the relative amounts (i.e. concentrations) of the P, S and X elements in the electrolyte.
Regarding claim 16, Figure 17 shows an X-ray diffraction image of Example 30 and peaks appear at the claimed locations.
Regarding claim 18, Matsuda discloses that at least one element M may be selected from the group listed [0052] which indicates that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select more than one from the list.
Regarding claim 20, Matsuda discloses a list of metals including several divalents and suggests that one or more may be selected [0052]. Absent a showing of unexpected results, the relative amounts of each element selected are considered an optimizable variable and readily determined by one of ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 21, as in Example 6 and Example 30, there is no second divalent metal present.
Regarding claim 22, as noted above, the materials comprising divalent element/s, at least one halogen, and nitrogen, not to mention sulfur and phosphorus, are combined to form the electrolyte. As explained in the 112(b) rejection above, the use of a divalent/halogen compound as the starting material is seen to meet the claim.
Regarding claims 23-25, Matsuda discloses the use of the solid electrolyte in power storage devices and electronic devices such as EVs and HEVs [0205].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach or obviate a sulfide solid electrolyte represented by chemical formula (1) as cited in claim 19. It is noted that the subscripts α and β are understood to be of positive value (i.e. not zero) as the claim requires them to give a stoichiometric ratio that depends upon the type of element M, where M is seen to be positively recited in the formula.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER C MCNEIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 5712723066. 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.
JENNIFER C. MCNEIL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/Jennifer McNeil/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights