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 § 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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al. (WO 2020105737), hereinafter Shibata, in view of Sung et al. (US 20180138546), hereinafter Sung.
Regarding claim 1, Shibata teaches:
A method of producing a sulfide solid electrolyte comprising (Abstract, [0110]):
mixing (i) a raw material inclusion containing comprising a lithium atom, a sulfur atom, a phosphorus atom, and a halogen atom, and (ii) a complexing agent having 2 or more of hetero atoms in the molecule to obtain an electrolyte precursor (Abstract);
preparing an electrolyte precursor and performing a grinding treatment of the electrolyte precursor in a solvent containing an oxygen atom-containing compound ([0015], [0040], Claim 10-11);
removing the solvent from the grinding treatment product to obtain a sulfide solid electrolyte ([0019], [0050], Claim 10-11).
Shibata fails to teach:
performing grinding treatment of the electrolyte precursor in a solvent containing an oxygen atom-containing compound having a relative permittivity of 3.2 or higher at 25 °C to obtain a grinding treatment product;
Sung teaches wet-milling a sulfide solid-electrolyte material in a solvent, wherein the solvent may include tetrahydrofuran (THF). THF is an oxygen atom-containing compound having a relative permittivity greater than 3.2 at 25°C ([0025-0026]).
Shibata and Sung are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sulfide solid-electrolyte production. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the grinding treatment of Shibata to use an oxygen atom-containing solvent such as THF as taught by Sung. The motivation to modify would be because Shibata already teaches performing the grinding treatment in the presence of a solvent and Sung demonstrates that an oxygen-containing solvent such as THF is suitable for wet-milling sulfide solid-electrolyte materials. The modification would therefore amount to the substitution of one known solvent used for wet grinding with another known solvent suitable for the same purpose, with a reasonable expectation of successfully obtaining the grinding treatment product.
Regarding claim 2, Shibata teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Shibata further teaches the oxygen atom-containing compound is an ether compound ([0040]).
Regarding claim 3, Shibata and Sung teach the limitations of claim 2, as stated above. Shibata further teaches the ether compound is an aliphatic ether having a carbon number of 1 to 20 ([0040], diethyl, tetrahydrofuran, dimethoxyethane, tert-Butyl methyl ether, cyclopentyl methyl ether , diisopropyl ether, dibutyl ether).
Regarding claim 4, Shibata and Sung teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Shibata further teaches:
The ether compound is represented by a formula (1), R1-O-R2...(1) wherein R1 and R2 each independently represent ([0040]):
alinearalkyl group having a carbon number of 1 to 20 ([0040], diethyl ether, dibutyl ether, tert-butyl methyl ether),
a branched alkyl group having a carbon number of 3 to 20 ([0040], diisopropyl ether, cyclopentyl methyl ether, tert-butyl methyl ether),
or a cycloalkyl group having a carbon number of 5 to 20 ([0040], cyclopentyl methyl ether).
Regarding claim 5, Shibata teaches the limitations of claim 4, as stated above. Shibata further teaches R1 and R2 in the general formula (1) are the same group ([0040], diethyl ether, diisopropyl ether, dibutyl ether).
Regarding claim 6, Shibata and Sung teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Shibata further teaches heating the electrolyte precursor ([0067]).
Regarding claim 7, Shibata and Sung teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Shibata further teaches heating the sulfide solid electrolyte ([0067-0069]).
Regarding claim 8, Shibata and Sung teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Shibata further teaches the complexing agent is a compound having a tertiary amino group (Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Shibata and Sung teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Shibata further teaches solvent further comprises a hydrocarbon compound (Claim 9).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata, in view of Sung, and in further view of Nida et al. (JP 5673760), hereinafter Nida.
Regarding claim 10, Shibata and Sung teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Shibata fails to teach the solvent contains comprises 50 to 99.5 % by mass of the hydrocarbon compound and 0.5 to 50 % by mass of the oxygen atom-containing compound.
Nida teaches a sulfide solid electrolyte that with a solvent that contains comprises 50 to 99.5 % by mass of the hydrocarbon compound and 0.5 to 50 % by mass of the oxygen atom-containing compound ([0009], [0027], Example 8 and Comparative Examples 1-5 teach 0.3125-87.5 wt% butyl ether and 12.5-99.6875 wt% heptane). Specifically, Nida teaches butyl ether (oxygen containing) and heptane (hydrocarbon) and their respective weight percentages in the solvent.
Shibata, Sung, and Nida are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sulfide solid-electrolyte production. It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select a weight percentage within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571) 431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights