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 .
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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuyama (JP 2019194997 A with references made to the machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, 9, 12 and 13, Matsuyama discloses a method for manufacturing a sulfide-based solid electrolyte, the method comprising:
providing a sulfide-based compound (such as Li11P3S12, see lines 879-881 in Example 3);
adding the sulfide-based compound to a silicone oil (as described in lines 879-881), followed by milling (as described in lines 879-881); and
drying the milled sulfide-based compound (as described in lines 889-893 which discloses evaporating/drying the produced milled slurry),
wherein a kinematic viscosity (CS) of the silicone oil is 0.5 to 5CS (see lines 843-845 which discloses that the silicone oil has a kinematic viscosity of 4CS).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Matsuyama further discloses the silicone oil is a cyclic polysiloxane, a linear polysiloxane, or a mixture thereof (lines 191-193 which discloses decamethylcyclopentasiloxane).
Regarding claim 4, Matsuyama further discloses the milling is performed by using any one of a ball mill or a bead mill (see lines 879-881 which discloses a ball mill).
Regarding claim 5, Matsuyama further discloses the milling involves no dispersant (example 3 in lines 878-896 does not use a dispersant).
Regarding claim 7, Matsuyama further discloses the sulfide-based compound is added in a content of 5 to 30 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of the silicone oil (in example 3, 0.5g or solid electrolyte is added to 5mL of D5 silicone oil which has a density of 0.9593 g/mL which results in 17.4 parts electrolyte per 100 parts oil).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuyama (JP 2019194997 A with references made to the machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, Matsuyama does not expressly state the claimed particle size range but does teach a range that overlaps the claimed range (see lines 158-162). As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. 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)).
Claim(s) 8, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuyama (JP 2019194997 A with references made to the machine translation) in view of Miyashita (US 2017/0222257).
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Matsuyama teaches a number of sulfide solid electrolyte materials (lines 148-154) but does not explicitly disclose an embodiment which includes lithium, phosphor, sulfur, and a halogen element in an argyrodite type crystal structure.
Miyashita also discloses a method of making a solid electrolyte (see abstract).
Miyashita teaches the solid electrolyte in an argyrodite type crystal structure comprising lithium, phosphorus, sulfur and a halogen (paragraph 16) in order to improve water resistance and oxidation resistance (paragraph 18).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the sulfide solid electrolyte of Miyashita in the manufacturing process of Matsuyama, in order to produce a high conductivity electrolyte that has improved water and oxidation resistance.
Regarding claim 11, Matsuyama, as modified by Miyashita, further discloses the solid electrolyte argyrodite crystal structure has a conductivity over 1.5 mS/cm (see several examples in Table 1 of the solid electrolyte exhibiting a conductivity over 1.5 mS/cm).
Relevant Prior Art
US 2014/0295260 - Discloses a process of manufacturing a sulfide solid electrolyte which includes mixing the solid electrolyte particles with a solvent and grinding/milling them together. This document, however does not mention any use of a silicone oil in the milling process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 8, Applicant argues that JP 2019-194997 does not teach the claimed kinematic viscosity. The Office respectfully disagrees with this argument as it does state the viscosity as disclosed in the rejection above. The remainder of Applicant’s arguments are directed toward rejections that are no longer present in the current Office Action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/MATTHEW J MERKLING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights