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 .
Summary
This is the response to the communication filed on 07/29/2026.
Claims 1-25 remain pending in the application with claim 25 is withdrawn from consideration in light of the Applicants’ election of claims 1-24 for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-24, in the reply filed on 07/29/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the mixture" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 15-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamada et al. (US 2021/0284534).
Addressing claims 1-6, 9-10 and 15-16, Yamada discloses a method for producing a sulfide-based solid electrolyte [0012] comprising:
mixing an alkali metal sulfide (Li2S5), a secondary sulfide (P2S5), an alkali halide (LiBr or LiCl) to produce a sulfide-based solid electrolyte [0013], wherein the mixing occurs in a blend of solvents comprising a catalytic solvent (nitrile solvents [0035-0036]) and a spectator solvent (nonpolar hydrocarbon-based solvent [0027-0031]); and
crystallizing the sulfide-based solid electrolyte [0078-0079] to achieve Argyrodite phase 0017].
Addressing claims 7-8, paragraph [0026] discloses 95% of the solvent is hydrocarbon-based solvent or the claimed spectator solvent and paragraph [0038] discloses 0.1 to 5 mass% of nitrile solvent or the claimed catalytic solvent.
Addressing claim 11, Yamada discloses nitrile solvents in paragraph [0036] that correspond to the claimed aryl solvent substituted with one or more nitrile groups (benzonitrile and 4-fluorobenzonitrile) or an alkyl solvent substituted with one or more nitrile groups (acetonitrile, propionitrile, butyronitrile, isobutyronitrile).
Addressing claim 17, paragraph [0078] discloses the firing step at 380oC that is the procedural equivalence to the step of heating the sulfide-based solid electrolyte to a temperature from about 350 oC to 550 oC.
Addressing claim 18, paragraph [0079] discloses pulverizing the argyrodite type solid electrode that satisfies the limitation “milling the mixture” and drying the sulfide-based solid electrolyte under reduced pressure that satisfies the limitation “under vacuum or atmospheric pressure”.
Addressing claims 19-20, Yamada implicitly discloses the existence of the claimed thiophosphate intermediate because the mixture of Yamada includes the same ingredients as those of current application and is subjected to the same process; therefore, the process of Yamada produces the same thiophosphate material as that of the claimed invention.
Addressing claim 21, paragraph [0013] discloses the claimed composition.
Addressing claims 22-23, Yamada discloses the claimed limitation because Yamada discloses the sulfide-based solid electrolyte is formed from the same ingredients as those of current application which results in a solid electrolyte comprises fewer impurities or having at least 25% greater ionic conductivity as compared to a sulfide-based solid electrolyte prepared with a non-coordinating non-reactive solvent. Furthermore, the claim does not recite any numerical values associated with the amount of impurities in the sulfide-based solid electrolyte to differentiate the claimed sulfide-based solid electrolyte from that of Yamada’s. Any impurities exist within the sulfide-based solid electrolyte of Yamada is considered as fewer than a sulfide-based solid electrolyte prepared with a non-coordinating non-reactive solvent with higher impurities.
Addressing claim 24, Yamada discloses a method for producing a sulfide-based solid electrolyte with an Argyrodite phase [0017] comprising:
mixing sulfide-based solid electrolyte precursors comprising LisS [0070-0073], P2S5 [0074], and LiX [0074] in a blend of solvents comprising a catalytic solvent (nitrile solvent [0035-0036]) and a spectator solvent (hydrocarbon-based solvent, [0027]) to produce a sulfide-based solid electrolyte [0017],
wherein X = F, Cl, Br or I [0074]; and
crystallizing the sulfide-based solid electrolyte [0078],
wherein the required mixing time of the sulfide-based solid electrolyte precursors is half or less in the presence of the catalytic solvent compared to using a spectator solvent only (the limitation is met because Yamada discloses using catalytic solvent in combination with spectator solvent which leads to reduced mixing time; additionally, the claim does not disclose any numerical values associated with the mixing time; therefore, the mixing time disclosed by Yamada is less than any mixing time that is greater when only spectator solvent is used).
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sato et al. (US 2016/0104917).
Addressing claims 1-5, 9-11 and 15-16, Sato discloses a method for producing a sulfide-based solid electrolyte (Abstract) comprising:
mixing an alkali metal sulfide [0040], a secondary sulfide (sulfur compound, [0052]), an alkali halide [0057] to produce a sulfide-based solid electrolyte, wherein the mixing occurs in a blend of solvents comprising a catalytic solvent (polar aprotic solvent [0032]) and a spectator solvent (hydrocarbon solvent, [0022-0024]); and
crystallizing the sulfide-based solid electrolyte [0079].
Addressing claims 7-8, Sato discloses the mixing ratio of hydrocarbon solvent to polar aprotic solvent is 95:5, which satisfies the claimed limitations because when the hydrocarbon solvent is toluene and the polar aprotic solvent is acetonitrile, the weight percentage of toluene is 95.5 and the weight percentage of acetonitrile is 4.5.
Addressing claim 17, paragraph [0078] discloses the heating temperature that falls within the claimed range.
Addressing claim 18, paragraph [0069] discloses the mixture is pulverized, which satisfies the limitation “milling the mixture”.
Addressing claims 19-20, Sato implicitly discloses the existence of the claimed thiophosphate intermediate because the mixture of Sato includes the same ingredients as those of current application and is subjected to the same process; therefore, the process of Sato produces the same thiophosphate material as that of the claimed invention.
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(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (US 2021/0284534).
Addressing claims 12-13, Yamada discloses in paragraph [0075] 0.125 moles of P2S5 and 7 ml of isobutyronitrile, which equates to 0.070 moles; therefore, the mole ratio of nitrile solvent to secondary sulfide is 0.56 that falls within the claimed range. However, the example of Yamada uses isobutyronitrile, which is not the claimed aryl solvent substituted with one or more nitrile groups. Yamada discloses benzonitrile, 4-fluorobenzonitrile and cyclohexylnitrile in paragraph [0036], as alternatives to isobutyronitrile, that are the claimed aryl solvent substituted with one or more nitrile groups. 7 ml of benzonitrile is 0.0679 mol, 7 ml of 4-fluorobenzonitrile is 0.07 mol and 7 ml of cyclohexylnitrile is 0.0628 mol that would result in the claimed molar ratio. Therefore, the limitation of current claim would have been obvious based on the teaching of Yamada.
Addressing claim 14, Yamada is silent regarding the limitation of current claim; however, Yamada discloses the solvent includes at least one of the nitrile solvents; therefore, one would have arrived at the claimed combination of solvents in the claimed mol ratio when perform routine experimentation with the type and amount of nitrile solvents in the list and range disclosed by Yamada in order to optimize the process of forming sulfide solid electrolyte.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BACH T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-5118. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571)-272-1307. 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.
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 09/01/2026
Prosecution Insights