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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of: Group I: claims 1 – 2 in the reply filed on May 6, 2026 is acknowledged.
In response to applicant’s argument (1): simply combining Li2S, P2S5 and LiBH4 with a molar ratio of 6:2:3 does not translate to 1:0.5 molar ratio of Li2S-P2S5:LiBH4. However, combining stoichiometric ratio of 1:0.5 Li2S-P2S5:LiBH4 or 1:1:0.5 of Li2S, P2S5 and LiBH4 would expectedly result in the same molar ratio as the product Li2S - P2S5 - LiBH4. Additionally, synthesis of the product could be achieved by a vapor phase method instead of a liquid phase method. The burden is on the examiner to provide an example but it need not be documented (See MPEP 806.05 (G)).
In response to the applicant’s argument (2): The applicant is incorrect. Separate classification establishes burden (See MPEP 808.02 (A)).
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.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi et al. (J. Power Sources, 2013, 244, 707-710).
Claim 1: Yamauchi teaches preparation of inorganic glass electrolytes with the formula (100-x)(0.75 Li2S -0.25 P2S5)∙xLiBH4 (0 ≤ x (mol%) ≤ 33) wherein the electrolyte where x=33, 67(0.75 Li2S -0.25 P2S5)∙33LiBH4 ( i.e., molar ratio of Li2S-P2S5 to LiBH4 is 1:0.5), was prepared by mechanical milling of Li2S-P2S5 glass and LiBH4 crystals (page 708 para 2, para 4). Yamauchi discloses DSC curves of the prepared glass electrolyte (Fig.2) (page 708) which show the peak due to the phase transition of LiBH4 starting material disappeared suggesting that LiBH4 was incorporated into the sulfide glass matrix (page 710 para 3). Yamauchi also discloses Raman spectra (Fig. 3) of the prepared glass electrolyte indicating the disappearance of crystal LiBH4 (2275 and 2300 cm-1 ), and the appearance of the band attributed to BH4- ions (2330 cm-1 ), suggesting that the ions are present in the glass without and have not deteriorated (page 709 para 2) forming electrostatic interactions (i.e., chemical bonds). Yamauchi does not identically teach the ratio 1:0.5, however, close proportions have been held to support a case of obviousness (See MPEP 2144.05.I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have chosen a mole ratio of exactly 1:0.5 because it is close to the example at x=33, and the same result would have been expected.
Claim 2: Yamauchi teaches an all-solid-state Li/TiS2 cell (i.e., lithium-ion secondary battery) comprising the electrolyte [67 (0.75 Li2S -0.25 P2S5)∙33 LiBH4] glass electrolyte layered and pressed (i.e., laminated) between a TiS2 electrode, and lithium-metal negative electrode (page 708 para 4, page 710 para 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sakuda et al. (ACS Omega 2018, 3, 5453-5458) teaches mechanochemically prepared sulfide-based solid electrolyte of composition (100-x)(0.75 Li2S-0.25 P2S5) including the solid glass electrolyte [67 (0.75Li2S-0. 2 5 P2S5) -33 LiBH4] (page 5453).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINAH RUSERE whose telephone number is (571)272-9954. 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/L.N.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1712
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights