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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/01/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Specifically, the applicant cites Li, X. et al., Sulfur-Rich Phosphorus Sulfide Molecules for Use in Rechargeable Lithium Batteries, Angewandte Chemie, International Edition, 56(11), 2937-2941, 2017 but did not provide a copy of reference. Instead, a copy of the published supplemental material was provided, though not cited.
The information disclosure statement filed 10/01/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Specifically, Korean patent document KR 102218226 B1 was provided without an English translation or explanation of relevance.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 102. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 17 and 18 objected to because of the following informalities:
Repetitive phrasing in claim 17: “…wherein the solid electrolyte material [[solid electrolyte material]] is selected…”
Repetitive phrasing in claim 18: “…wherein the solid electrolyte material [[solid electrolyte material]] is selected…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Note that the limitation “prepared by heating one or more lithium sources with a compound having the formula P4Sx to form a solid electrolyte material, where 10 < x ≤ 40” in claims 1-5 and 14-20 are product-by-process limitations. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." See MPEP §2113. For the purposes of examination, the claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation, such that the product as described by the recited process is interpreted to include a solid electrolyte composition containing lithium, phosphorus, and sulfur.
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 7, 9, 11, and 12 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 7 recites, in reference to claim 6, the limitation: “the compound having the formula P4Sx.” However, it is unclear if this element refers to “a compound having the formula P4Sx…where 10 < x ≤ 40” recited in claim 6 or to another compound wherein the value of x exists outside the recited range, such as those P4Sx compounds where x ≤ 10 recited in claim 7 and in [0006, 0031, 0062, 0064, 0083] of the instant specification. Thus, the scope of the claim is rendered unascertainable. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted to include the “a compound having the formula P4Sx…where 10 < x ≤ 40,” as recited in claim 6, as it appears this was the applicant’s intention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the sulfur source containing a phosphorus sulfur material" in reference to . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, claim 9 will be interpreted as referring to and dependent upon claim 7, as it appears this was the applicant’s intention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the lithium halide" in reference to . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, claim 11 will be interpreted as referring to and dependent upon claim 10, as it appears this was the applicant’s intention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the lithium pseudohalide" in reference to . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, claim 12 will be interpreted as referring to and dependent upon claim 10, as it appears this was the applicant’s intention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 14, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 20200358131 A1), hereinafter "Kim".
Claim 1 includes product-by-process limitations and is being given the broadest reasonable interpretation as detailed above (see Claim Interpretation). Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a sulfide-based solid electrolyte containing a lithium element, a phosphorus element, a sulfur element, and a halogen element ([0013]; corresponding to a solid electrolyte material prepared by heating one or more lithium sources with a compound having the formula P4Sx to form a solid electrolyte material, where 10 < x ≤ 40).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches:
the solid electrolyte material of claim 1 (see above); and
the sulfide-based solid electrolyte may include Li5.5PS4.5Cl1.5 (Example 1, Tables 1 and 2, pg. 4) and Li5.25PS4.25Cl1.75 (Example 2, Tables 1 and 2, pg. 4; corresponding to the solid electrolyte material of claim 1, wherein the solid electrolyte material is of the formula: Li(7-y-z)PS(6-y-z)X(y)W(z) wherein: X and W are individually selected from F, Cl, Br, and I; y and z each individually range from 0 to 2; and where y+z ranges from 0 to 2).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches:
the solid electrolyte material of claim 1 (see above); and
a mixture for the solid electrolyte with the formula Li5.5PS4.5Cl1.5 (Example 1, Tables 1 and 2, pg. 4; corresponding to wherein the solid electrolyte material is selected from Li3PS4, Li4P2S6, Li7P3S11, Li5.5PS4.5Cl1.5, Li5.5PS4.5ClBr0.5, Li5PS4Cl2, and Li5PS4ClBr).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches the solid electrolyte material of claim 1 (see above). Also, the examiner notes that “wherein the solid electrolyte material has an X-ray diffraction pattern having peaks corresponding to 2theta of 17.5° ± 0.5°, 18.1° ± 0.5°, 19.9° ± 0.5°, 22.8° ± 0.5°, 25.95° ± 0.5°, 29.1° ± 0.5°, 29.9° ± 0.5°, and 31.1° ± 0.5°” is an instance of functional language which only imparts a structure capable of exhibiting peaks at the corresponding 2theta values during X-ray diffraction measurements. See MPEP §2173.05(g).
Furthermore, a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(II). Kim teaches a composition for solid electrolytes substantially identical to that in the instant claim 1, as well as the more narrowly-claimed compositions of claims 2 and 3 (see above), therefore it would be expected that a material of substantially identical composition would exhibit peaks at the claimed 2theta values when subjected to X-ray diffraction measurements.
Claim 14 includes product-by-process limitations and is being given the broadest reasonable interpretation as detailed above (see Claim Interpretation). Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches:
an all-solid-state-battery ([0052]; corresponding to a solid-state battery) including an anode (reference character 10, Fig. 1; corresponding to a negative electrode layer), a cathode (reference character 20, Fig. 1; corresponding to a positive electrode layer), and a solid electrolyte layer interposed between the anode and cathode (reference character 30, Fig. 1), the solid electrolyte containing a lithium element, a phosphorus element, a sulfur element, and a halogen element ([0013]; corresponding to a separator layer where the separator layer contains a solid electrolyte material prepared by heating one or more lithium sources with a compound having the formula P4Sx to form a solid electrolyte material, where 10 < x ≤ 40).
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches:
the solid-state battery of claim 14 (see above); and
the sulfide-based solid electrolyte may include a compound represented by the following Formula 1: Li7-aPS6-aXa, wherein X is a halogen element selected from the group consisting of chlorine (Cl), bromine (Br), iodine (I) and a combination thereof, and a satisfies 1<a<2.5 ([0014]) as well as Li5.5PS4.5Cl1.5 (Example 1, Tables 1 and 2, pg. 4) and Li5.25PS4.25Cl1.75 (Example 2, Tables 1 and 2, pg. 4; corresponding to the solid electrolyte material of claim 1, wherein the solid electrolyte material is of the formula: Li(7-y-z)PS(6-y-z)X(y)W(z) wherein: X and W are individually selected from F, Cl, Br, and I; y and z each individually range from 0 to 2; and where y+z ranges from 0 to 2).
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches:
the solid-state battery of claim 14 (see above); and
a mixture for the solid electrolyte with the formula Li5.5PS4.5Cl1.5 (Example 1, Tables 1 and 2, pg. 4; corresponding to wherein the solid electrolyte material is selected from Li3PS4, Li4P2S6, Li7P3S11, Li5.5PS4.5Cl1.5, Li5.5PS4.5ClBr0.5, Li5PS4Cl2, and Li5PS4ClBr).
Regarding claim 20, Kim teaches the solid-state battery of claim 14 (see above) as well as an electrolyte of substantially identical composition to instant claims 14, 16, and 18. As such, it would be expected that a material of substantially identical composition would exhibit peaks at the claimed 2theta values when subjected to X-ray diffraction measurements (see rationale for claim 5 above).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Frieberg et al. (US 20220320493 A1), hereinafter "Frieberg".
Regarding claim 6, Frieberg teaches:
a method of manufacturing…a thin layer of lithium thiophosphate solid electrolyte material on an outer surface of the Li—Si alloy particles ([0057]; corresponding to a process for synthesizing a solid electrolyte material);
treating lithium-silicon (Li-Si)alloy particles ([0008]; corresponding to one or more lithium sources) with a precursor solution that includes a phosphorus sulfide compound, the phosphorus sulfide compound including P4S16 ([0008, 0013]; corresponding to a compound having the formula P4Sx to form a solid electrolyte material, where 10 < x ≤ 40);
and heating once the precursor layer has been deposited on the surface of the alloy particles ([0068]; corresponding to heating).
Regarding claim 7, Frieberg teaches the process of claim 6 (see above) as well preparing a precursor mixture including the composite Li—Si alloy particles ([0035]; corresponding to mixing a sulfur source with the one or more lithium sources and the compound having the formula P4Sx), the precursors including the phosphorus sulfide compound P4S16. The examiner considers the compound of the formula P4Sx of Frieberg to meet the limitations of both the sulfur source and the phosphorus sulfur material because the compound contains sulfur, has the same formula as the phosphorus sulfur materials instantly claimed, and because the claim does not expressly require the sulfur source and the phosphorus sulfur material be separate and/or different materials.
Regarding claim 8, Frieberg teaches the process of claim 6 (see above). Frieberg also discloses the use of P4S16, which meets the instantly claimed compound having the formula P4Sx, where 10 < x ≤ 40.Frieberg does not explicitly teach that P4S16 is amorphous. However, the instant specification ([0017]) discloses that compounds of the formula P4Sx are amorphous when x > 14 due to large relative quantities of sulfur, therefore, the P4S16 would be expected to be amorphous based on the evidence of the record.
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.
Claim 2 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
Regarding claim 2, the broad disclosure of Kim teaches an overlapping composition represented by the formula: Li7-aPS6-aXa, wherein X is a halogen element selected from the group consisting of chlorine (Cl), bromine (Br), iodine (I) and a combination thereof, and a satisfies 1<a<2.5 ([0014]). The composition range of Kim overlaps with the instantly claimed, wherein Kim specifies that X may be a halogen, specifically Cl, Br, or I or a mixture thereof (i.e. the Xa component of Kim’s composition corresponding to the X(y)W(z) components of the instantly claimed composition), and that the quantity of the halogen may be of a value within an overlapping range (Kim: 1 < a < 2.5, instantly claimed: 0 ≤ y ≤ 2 or 0 ≤ z ≤ 2 or 0 ≤ y+z ≤ 2, overlap: 1 < a ≤ 2), resulting further in overlapping ranges for both the Li and S components of the composition. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claims 4, 15, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of and as evidenced by Aihara et al. (US 20150093652 A1), hereinafter "Aihara".
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches:
the solid electrolyte material of claim 1; and
wherein the solid electrolyte material contains one solid electrolyte material of the formula: Li(7-y-z)PS(6-y-z)X(y)W(z) wherein: X and W are individually selected from F, Cl, Br, and I; y and z each individually range from 0 to 2; and y+z ranges from 0 to 2 (see claim 2 above).
Kim does not teach:
and contains at least one solid electrolyte material selected from Li3PS4, Li4P2S6, and Li7P3S11.
However, Aihara teaches:
the sulfide product may be an amorphous material or a crystalline material including at least one selected from Li3PS4, Li4P2S6, Li4P2S7, and Li7P3S11 ([0032]; corresponding to contains at least one solid electrolyte material selected from Li3PS4, Li4P2S6, and Li7P3S11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the Li3PS4, Li4P2S6, Li4P2S7, or Li7P3S11 of Aihara to the composition of Kim in order to achieve sulfide solid electrolytes that can be produced on a large scale with low manufacturing costs and high ion conductivity (Aihara [0011]).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Kim teaches the solid-state battery of claim 14 and the solid electrolyte (see above). Kim does not explicitly teach a negative electrode layer containing a negative active material or a positive electrode layer containing a positive active material. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a functional battery would necessarily include a negative electrode layer containing a negative active material and a positive electrode layer containing a positive active material, as evidenced by Aihara ([0035, 0098, 0099, 0104, 0105]).
Regarding claim 19, Kim in view of Aihara teaches the solid-battery of claim 14, the solid electrolyte composition, and the solid electrolyte material containing at least one of Li3PS4, Li4P2S6, and Li7P3S11 (see claim 4 above).
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frieberg.
Regarding claim 9, Frieberg teaches the process of claim 7 (see above) as well as the use of a compound of the formula P4Sx, wherein x is an integer and 2 ≤ x ≤ 16. This range includes those compounds wherein x = 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, and thus encompasses all members of the claimed group. The examiner considers the compound of the formula P4Sx, wherein x is an integer and 2 ≤ x ≤ 16 of Frieberg to meet the limitations of both the sulfur source and the phosphorus sulfur material because the compound contains sulfur, has the same formula as the phosphorus sulfur materials instantly claimed, and because the claim does not expressly require the sulfur source and the phosphorus sulfur material be separate and/or different materials.
Regarding claim 13, Frieberg teaches heating the precursor layer at a temperature greater than 25 °C and less than 300 °C ([0068]), overlapping with the instantly claimed range of 150 °C to 600 °C (overlap: 150 °C – 300 °C). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frieberg as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Bickmore et al. (WO 2022221729 A1), hereinafter "Bickmore".
Regarding claim 10, Frieberg teaches the process of claim 6.
Frieberg does not teach:
wherein the one or more lithium source comprises Li2S, Li2CO3, a lithium halide, a lithium pseudohalide, Li2O, Li3PO4, LiBO2, Li2B4O7, Li2ZrO3, LiAIO2, Li2TiO3, LiNbO3, Li2SiO3, or a mixture thereof.
However, Bickmore teaches:
a lithium-containing material comprising Li2S, Li2O, Li2CO3, Li2SO4, LiNO3, Li3N, Li2NH, LiNH2, LiF, LiCl, LiBr, LiI, or LiX(1-a)Ya, wherein the X and Y include halogens, such as F, Cl, Br, or I, and/or pseudohalogens, such as BH4, BF4, OCN, CN, SCN, SH, NO, or NO2 where 0≤a≤1 ([0007]; corresponding to wherein the one or more lithium source comprises Li2S, Li2CO3, a lithium halide, a lithium pseudohalide, Li2O, Li3PO4, LiBO2, Li2B4O7, Li2ZrO3, LiAIO2, Li2TiO3, LiNbO3, Li2SiO3, or a mixture thereof).
Bickmore’s teachings include the use of the above disclosed lithium-containing materials as precursors used in a method of synthesizing a solid-state electrolyte. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute one or more of the lithium containing materials of Bickmore for the lithium-silicon alloy particles of Freiberg as Bickmore’s disclosure establishes such materials as known alternatives in the production of a solid-state electrolyte (Bickmore [0002, 0006, 0007, 0157, 0159]).
Regarding claim 11, Frieberg in view of Bickmore teaches the process of claim 10, as well as the use of lithium halides, including LiF, LiBr, LiCl, LiI, and combinations thereof ([0007]; corresponding to the lithium halide is selected from the group consisting of LiF, LiCI, LiBr, Lil, and mixtures thereof) . It would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to substitute one of the lithium halides of Bickmore for the lithium-silicon alloy particles of Freiberg for the same reason as detailed in claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 12, Frieberg in view of Bickmore teaches the process of claim 10, as well as the use of lithium pseudohalides, including LiNO3, Li3N, Li2NH, LiNH2, LIBH4, and LiBF4 ([0007]; corresponding to the lithium pseudohalide is selected from the group consisting of LiNO3, LiOH, Li2SO3, Li3N, Li2NH, LiNH2, LiBF4, LiBH4, and mixtures thereof). It would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to substitute one of the lithium pseudohalides of Bickmore for the lithium-silicon alloy particles of Freiberg for the same reason as detailed in claim 10 above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 6, and 14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 7, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11,349,149 in view of Frieberg. The instant claims are identical to or overlapping with the patented claims in all aspects except for a compound having the formula P4Sx, wherein 10 < x ≤40. However, Frieberg teaches the use of P4S16 as a precursor material in the synthesis of a solid electrolyte comprising lithium, phosphorus, and sulfur. One of ordinary skill would recognize that P4S16 may be used as either a phosphorus source, a sulfur source, or both, given that it contains phosphorus and sulfur, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the P4S16 precursor of Frieberg for the instantly claimed compound having the formula P4Sx, where 10 < x ≤ 40, as Frieberg’s disclosure establishes such material as a known alternative in the production of a solid-state electrolyte (Frieberg [0008, 0012, 0013, 0058]).
Claims 1 and 14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11,916,193 in view of Frieberg. The instant claims are identical to or overlapping with the patented claims in all aspects except for a compound having the formula P4Sx, wherein 10 < x ≤40. However, Frieberg teaches the use of P4S16 as a precursor material in the synthesis of a solid electrolyte comprising lithium, phosphorus, and sulfur. One of ordinary skill would recognize that P4S16 may be used as either a phosphorus source, a sulfur source, or both, given that it contains phosphorus and sulfur, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the P4S16 precursor of Frieberg for the instantly claimed compound having the formula P4Sx, where 10 < x ≤ 40, as Frieberg’s disclosure establishes such material as a known alternative in the production of a solid-state electrolyte (Frieberg [0008, 0012, 0013, 0058]).
Claim 1, 6, and 14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 7, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11,923,503 B2 in view of Frieberg. The instant claims are identical to or overlapping with the patented claims in all aspects except for a compound having the formula P4Sx, wherein 10 < x ≤40. However, Frieberg teaches the use of P4S16 as a precursor material in the synthesis of a solid electrolyte comprising lithium, phosphorus, and sulfur. One of ordinary skill would recognize that P4S16 may be used as either a phosphorus source, a sulfur source, or both, given that it contains phosphorus and sulfur, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the P4S16 precursor of Frieberg for the instantly claimed compound having the formula P4Sx, where 10 < x ≤ 40, as Frieberg’s disclosure establishes such material as a known alternative in the production of a solid-state electrolyte (Frieberg [0008, 0012, 0013, 0058]).
Claim 6 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,731,814 in view of Frieberg. The instant claims are identical to or overlapping with the patented claims in all aspects except for a compound having the formula P4Sx, wherein 10 < x ≤40. However, Frieberg teaches the use of P4S16 as a precursor material in the synthesis of a solid electrolyte comprising lithium, phosphorus, and sulfur. One of ordinary skill would recognize that P4S16 may be used as either a phosphorus source, a sulfur source, or both, given that it contains phosphorus and sulfur, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the P4S16 precursor of Frieberg for the instantly claimed compound having the formula P4Sx, where 10 < x ≤ 40, as Frieberg’s disclosure establishes such material as a known alternative in the production of a solid-state electrolyte (Frieberg [0008, 0012, 0013, 0058]).
Claims 1 and 14 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 16, respectively of copending Application No. 18/972702 in view of Frieberg. The instant claims are identical to or overlapping with the copending claims in all aspects except for a compound having the formula P4Sx, wherein 10 < x ≤40. However, Frieberg teaches the use of P4S16 as a precursor material in the synthesis of a solid electrolyte comprising lithium, phosphorus, and sulfur. One of ordinary skill would recognize that P4S16 may be used as either a phosphorus source, a sulfur source, or both, given that it contains phosphorus and sulfur, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the P4S16 precursor of Frieberg for the instantly claimed compound having the formula P4Sx, where 10 < x ≤ 40, as Frieberg’s disclosure establishes such material as a known alternative in the production of a solid-state electrolyte (Frieberg [0008, 0012, 0013, 0058]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 6, and 14 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14, 1 and 6, and 19, respectively of copending Application No. 19/000083 in view of Frieberg. The instant claims are identical to or overlapping with the copending claims in all aspects except for a compound having the formula P4Sx, wherein 10 < x ≤40. However, Frieberg teaches the use of P4S16 as a precursor material in the synthesis of a solid electrolyte comprising lithium, phosphorus, and sulfur. One of ordinary skill would recognize that P4S16 may be used as either a phosphorus source, a sulfur source, or both, given that it contains phosphorus and sulfur, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the P4S16 precursor of Frieberg for the instantly claimed compound having the formula P4Sx, where 10 < x ≤ 40, as Frieberg’s disclosure establishes such material as a known alternative in the production of a solid-state electrolyte (Frieberg [0008, 0012, 0013, 0058]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1 and 6 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8, respectively of copending Application No. 19/000157 in view of Frieberg. The instant claims are identical to or overlapping with the copending claims in all aspects except for a compound having the formula P4Sx, wherein 10 < x ≤40. However, Frieberg teaches the use of P4S16 as a precursor material in the synthesis of a solid electrolyte comprising lithium, phosphorus, and sulfur. One of ordinary skill would recognize that P4S16 may be used as either a phosphorus source, a sulfur source, or both, given that it contains phosphorus and sulfur, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the P4S16 precursor of Frieberg for the instantly claimed compound having the formula P4Sx, where 10 < x ≤ 40, as Frieberg’s disclosure establishes such material as a known alternative in the production of a solid-state electrolyte (Frieberg [0008, 0012, 0013, 0058]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 6 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of copending Application No. 19/088836 in view of Frieberg. The instant claims are identical to or overlapping with the copending claims in all aspects except for a compound having the formula P4Sx, wherein 10 < x ≤40. However, Frieberg teaches the use of P4S16 as a precursor material in the synthesis of a solid electrolyte comprising lithium, phosphorus, and sulfur. One of ordinary skill would recognize that P4S16 may be used as either a phosphorus source, a sulfur source, or both, given that it contains phosphorus and sulfur, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the P4S16 precursor of Frieberg for the instantly claimed compound having the formula P4Sx, where 10 < x ≤ 40, as Frieberg’s disclosure establishes such material as a known alternative in the production of a solid-state electrolyte (Frieberg [0008, 0012, 0013, 0058]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 6 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of copending Application No. 19/088579 in view of Frieberg. The instant claims are identical to or overlapping with the copending claims in all aspects except for a compound having the formula P4Sx, wherein 10 < x ≤40. However, Frieberg teaches the use of P4S16 as a precursor material in the synthesis of a solid electrolyte comprising lithium, phosphorus, and sulfur. One of ordinary skill would recognize that P4S16 may be used as either a phosphorus source, a sulfur source, or both, given that it contains phosphorus and sulfur, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the P4S16 precursor of Frieberg for the instantly claimed compound having the formula P4Sx, where 10 < x ≤ 40, as Frieberg’s disclosure establishes such material as a known alternative in the production of a solid-state electrolyte (Frieberg [0008, 0012, 0013, 0058]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 6 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 18/389617 in view of Frieberg. The instant claims are identical to or overlapping with the copending claims in all aspects except for a compound having the formula P4Sx, wherein 10 < x ≤40. However, Frieberg teaches the use of P4S16 as a precursor material in the synthesis of a solid electrolyte comprising lithium, phosphorus, and sulfur. One of ordinary skill would recognize that P4S16 may be used as either a phosphorus source, a sulfur source, or both, given that it contains phosphorus and sulfur, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the P4S16 precursor of Frieberg for the instantly claimed compound having the formula P4Sx, where 10 < x ≤ 40, as Frieberg’s disclosure establishes such material as a known alternative in the production of a solid-state electrolyte (Frieberg [0008, 0012, 0013, 0058]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20070160911 A1 – teaches Li3PS4 and Li4P2S6 as solid electrolyte components
EP 3140877 B1 – teaches Li7P3S11 as solid electrolyte component
US 20250183361 A1 – teaches Li5.5PS4.5ClBr0.5 as solid electrolyte component
US 20210323824 A1 – teaches Li5PS4Cl2 as solid electrolyte component
WO 2020095937 A1 – teaches Li5PS4ClBr as solid electrolyte component
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J DUNCAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0586. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1177. 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.
/A.J.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/NICHOLAS A WANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights