DETAILED ACTION
An amendment, amending claim 1 and adding new claim 21, was entered on 1/27/26. Claims 14-19 remain withdrawn pursuant to an election.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the combination of Albano and Li fails to provide a reasonable expectation of success because Albano is notably silent about lithium argyrodite powders and because nothing in Li suggests coating a solid electrolyte powder. This is not persuasive. Albano teaches coating a solid electrolyte powder, explaining that suitable powders are SSE particles comprise lithium, phosphorus and sulfur, such as Li2S-P2S5 (see, e.g., ¶ 0040). Thus, the only feature of the invention missing from Albano is the specific composition of the SSE particles. Li teaches lithium-based SSE particles and explains that lithium argyrodite (Li6PS5X, wherein X is Cl, Br or I) is a suitable alternative to Li2S-P2S5 as the SSE particles (¶ 0047). The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the lithium argyrodite of Li would be a suitable substitute as the SSE particle in Albano with the predictable expectation of success.
Applicant also argues that the Office relies on overlapping ranges where no ranges are disclosed. This is not persuasive. The Office has not relied upon overlapping ranges. The previous action explained that Albano teaches that the coating is tailored to achieve a desired ionic conductivity and electrical conductivity (see, e.g., ¶ 0129). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). This result effective variable evaluation relies on a particular variable being recognized as result effective and does not rely upon a disclosed range.
Applicant also argues that the filed disclosure shows evidence of unexpected results associated with the claimed invention. This is not persuasive. Evidence of unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claims. In this case, all of the submitted evidence persuasively shows unexpected results associated with the use of LPSCl powder, but the current claims are more broadly directed to powders which include not only LPSCl, but also, e.g., LiPSeBr, LiArSF, LiArSeCl, etc. And each of these compounds are claimed over a broad range of stoichiometric values. Applicant can either amend the claim to more narrowly claim the lithium argyrodite powder to match the specific LPSCl powders relied upon to show unexpected results (i.e. Li6PS5Cl) or provide evidence that each of the claimed lithium argyrodite compositions would be expected to behave in a substantially similar manner as the evidenced Li6PS5Cl.
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, 4 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albano et al. (US 2016/0351973) in light of Li et al. (US 2020/0403267).
Claims 1 and 13: Albano teaches a process of forming a protective layer over solid state electrode (“SSE”) particles (Abst.), comprising the steps of: providing lithium sulfide-based SSE particles in an atomic layer deposition (“ALD”) reactor (¶¶ 0039-0040); depositing a first protective coating on the SSE particles by introducing a first precursor into the ALD reactor to form first precursor complexes and then introducing a reactant which reacts with the precursor to form a protective layer (¶¶ 0038-0039, 0194).
Albano teaches that the SSE particles comprise lithium, phosphorus and sulfur, such as Li2S-P2S5 (see, e.g., ¶ 0040), but fails to teach a particle having the formula of claims 1 and 13. Li teaches lithium-based SSE particles and explains that lithium argyrodite (Li6PS5X, wherein X is Cl, Br or I) is a suitable alternative to Li2S-P2S5 as the SSE particles (¶ 0047). The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected Li6PS5X, wherein X is Cl, Br or I as the SSE particles in Albano with the predictable expectation of success.
Albano also teaches that the particles are pressed into a desired shape for a battery (¶ 0050), such as a membrane (see, e.g., ¶ 0129) and that the coating is tailored to achieve a desired ionic conductivity and electrical conductivity (see, e.g., ¶ 0129). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected an ionic conductivity of 0.25-25 mS/cm and an electrical conductivity of 10ical conductivity of 10-12 to 10-7 S/cm depending on the desired characteristics of the SSE.
Claim 4: Albano teaches that the first protective coating comprises aluminum oxide and therefore implicitly teaches that the first ALD gas comprises aluminum (¶¶ 0189, 0194).
Claim 9: Albano teaches repeating the ALD steps to achieve a thickness of 1-10 nm (¶¶ 0087-0088).
Claim 10: Albano teaches forming a second protective coating on the first, the second coating different from the first (¶ 0080) and having a thickness of 1-10 nm (¶ 0091).
Claim 11: Albano teaches that the particles have a diameter of 5nm to 10 µm (¶ 0043). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected particles having a diameter of 25nm to 10µm with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 12: Albano further teaches depositing an Al2O3 seed coating on the particles prior to the ALD steps (¶ 0038).
Claims 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albano and Li in light of Xie et al. (US 2016/0358835).
Claim 5: Albano teaches forming a metal oxide film via the ALD process, but doesn’t expressly teach suitable oxygen reactants. Xie teaches an ALD process and explains that water is a suitable reactant to form oxides (¶ 0070). The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected water as the oxygen species in Albano with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 6: Albano teaches that the protective coating can be a mixed compound, such as a metal oxynitride (¶ 0047), but fails to expressly teach the ALD steps used to form such a compound. Xie teaches an ALD process of forming a metal oxynitride and explains that the sequence of pulses should be: metal precursor, oxygen reactant, metal precursor, nitrogen reactant (i.e. claimed A, B, A, C) (¶¶ 0070-0074). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, because Albano is silent regarding the sequence of pulses and because Xie teaches that A, B, A, C is a suitable sequence to form a metal oxynitride, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected the sequence of A, B, A, C in Albano with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 8: Albano further teaches that the protective coating can have a gradiated composition throughout the layer (¶ 0038). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have tailored the repetition of pulses to achieve the desired gradiation with the predictable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 21 is allowed.
None of the prior art on record, taken individually or in combination, fairly teaches or suggests forming an oxysulfide layer on the SSE via the claimed A, B, A, C sequence of pulses wherein C is hydrogen sulfide or dimethyl sulfide.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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) 270-1034. 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.
/ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712