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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2020-188040, filed on 11-11-2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7-31-2024 and 4-27-2023 filed after the mailing date on 4-27-2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-12021185-B2, hereinafter Maughan, and further in view of JP-6444673-B2, hereinafter Tamura.
Regarding Claim 1, Maughan teaches a sulfide solid electrolyte (Col 7, L 47 & Col 4, L 36) to be used in a lithium-ion secondary battery (Col 1, L 38), the sulfide solid electrolyte comprising:
an argyrodite crystal structure comprising Li, P, S, and Ha (Fig. 1, b), wherein
Ha is at least one selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br, and I (Fig. 1, b)
Maughan teaches the sulfide solid electrolyte has a peak in at least one selected from the group consisting of 140 cm−1 to 170 cm−1, 205 cm−1 to 235 cm−1, and 460 cm−1 to 490 cm−1 in a Raman spectrum obtained by Raman spectroscopy measurement (Col. 9 L 17).
Maughan does not teach the sulfide solid electrolyte does not have an endothermic peak within a range of 70° C. to 160° C. in a DSC curve obtained by differential scanning calorimetry. However, Tamura discloses a similar solid sulfide electrolyte with no endothermic peak within a range of 30° C. to 350° C in a DSC curve obtained by differential scanning calorimetry through particular pulverizing and mixing steps [0011]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Tamura’s means of obtaining DSC characteristics in Maughan’s sulfide solid electrolyte to prevent softening or crystallization in that temperature range resulting in high discharge density and excellent cycle characteristics (Pg 5, Lines 10-20).
Regarding Claim 2, Maughan teaches the argyrodite crystal structure has a composition represented by LiaPSbHac (where 5≤a≤7, 4≤b≤6, and 0<c≤2) (Fig. 1, b).
Regarding Claim 3, Maughan teaches a ratio IB/IA of a peak intensity (IA) at 420 cm−1 to 440 cm−1 to a peak intensity (IB) at 460 cm−1 to 490 cm−1 in the Raman spectrum is 0.005 or more (Fig. 5: peaks sufficiently specific to the above range of similar breadth compared in height read on the breadth of the claimed relationship).
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maughan and Tamura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP-3886209-B1, hereinafter Morinaka.
Regarding Claim 4, Maughan does not teach the sulfide solid electrolyte is in a state of a powder having an average particle diameter of 2 μm to 10 μm. However, Morinaka teaches a sulfide solid electrolyte in a state of a powder having an average particle diameter between 2 μm to 10 μm. [0020]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Morinaka’s known diameter in Maughan’s sulfide solid electrolyte to prevent problems such as an increase in resistance and difficulty in mixing the lithium ion conductive material with an active material [0020].
With respect to the limitation of obtaining a ratio σ(30 kN)/σ(10 kN) of a lithium ion conductivity σ(30 kN) at 25° C. when the powder is formed into a green compact under a pressure of 30 kN to a lithium ion conductivity σ(10 kN) at 25° C. when the powder is formed into a green compact at a pressure of 10 kN is 1.34 or less. This limitation appears to measure a property ratio of an unclaimed product (green compact) which is the result of further processing of the claimed electrolyte. Given that the art teaches the same electrolyte of instant claim 4 the further manipulation of the claimed product under the same conditions claimed would necessarily produce the same results barring evidence that the post processing imparts structural difference on the claimed electrolyte.
Regarding Claim 6, Maughan teaches a solid electrolyte layer (Col 4, L 36) comprising the sulfide solid electrolyte (Col 7, 47).
Regarding Claim 7, Maughan teaches a lithium-ion secondary (Col 3, L16) battery comprising the sulfide solid electrolyte (Col 7, 47).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maughan and Tamura, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US-20210066748-A1, hereinafter Yao.
Regarding Claim 5, Maughan does not teach an elastic modulus of 5 GPa to 40 GPa. However, Yao teaches a sulfur based solid state electrolyte with an elastic (Young’s) modulus of 20.9±0.7 GPa wherein such excellent mechanics is recognized as desirable in the art and achieved through art recognized techniques such as cold processing [0047]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to achieve Yao’s modulus in Maughan’s through known mechanical strengthening steps such as cold processing of sulfide solid electrolyte to ensure excellent mechanical properties as taught by Yao [0047].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TELGE S PEIRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6591. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached on (571)270-5256. 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.
/TELGE SHAVINDA PEIRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724