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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/24/2023, 01/14/2026, and 07/01/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 and Species A, which is claims 1-5 and 11, in the reply filed on 08/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-10 and 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/21/2026.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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, 3-5, and 11 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 8697292.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following.
Regarding claims 1 and 3-5 of the instant application, claim 1 of the published patent recites a sulfide solid electrolyte material comprising an M1 element, an M2 element, and an S element; wherein M1 is at least one kind selected from the group consisting of Li, Na, K, Mg, Ca and Zn; and M2 is at least one kind selected from the group consisting of P, Sb, Si, Ge, Sn, B, Al, Ga, In, Ti, Zr, V and Nb; having a peak in positions of 2θ=29.58° ± 0.50.degree. in an X-ray diffraction measurement using a CuKα line; and having an IB/IA value of 0.25 or less when a diffraction intensity at the peak of 2θ=29.58° ±.0.50° is represented by IA and a diffraction intensity at a peak of 2θ=27.33°+-.0.50° is represented by IB. When M1 is Li and M2 is P and Nb in the reference patent, the sulfide solid electrolyte material reads on claims 1 and 3-5 of the application.
Regarding claim 11 of the instant application, claim 9 of the published patent recites a battery comprising: a cathode active material layer containing a cathode active material, an anode active material layer containing an anode active material, and an electrolyte layer formed between the cathode active material layer and the anode active material layer; wherein at least one of the cathode active material layer, the anode active material layer, and the electrolyte layer contains the sulfide solid electrolyte material according to claim 1.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 11 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 9263763.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following.
Regarding claims 1 and 3-5 of the instant application, claim 1 of the published patent recites a sulfide solid electrolyte material comprising an M1 element, an M2 element, and an S element and an O element; wherein the M1 contains at least Li; the M2 is at least one kind selected from the group consisting of P, Sb, Si, Ge, Sn, B, Al, Ga, In, Ti, Zr, V and Nb; and having a peak at a positions of 2θ=29.58° ± 0.50° in an X-ray diffraction measurement using a CuKα ray; and wherein when a diffraction intensity at the peak of 2θ=29.58°±0.50° is regarded as IA and a diffraction intensity at a peak of 2θ=27.33°±0.50° is regarded as IB, a value of IB/IA is less than 0.50. When M1 is Li and M2 is P and Nb in the reference patent, the sulfide solid electrolyte material reads on claims 1 and 3-5 of the application.
Regarding claims 1 and 3-5 of the instant application, claim 2 of the published patent recites a sulfide solid electrolyte material comprising an M1 element, an M2 element, and an S element and an O element; wherein the M1 contains at least Li; the M2 is at least one kind selected from the group consisting of P, Sb, Si, Ge, Sn, B, Al, Ga, In, Ti, Zr, V and Nb; and having a peak at a positions of 2θ=29.58° ± 0.50° in an X-ray diffraction measurement using a CuKα ray; and wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte material does not have a peak at a position of 2θ=27.33°±0.50° or wherein when a diffraction intensity at the peak of 2θ=29.58°±0.50° is regarded as IA and a diffraction intensity at a peak of 2θ=27.33°±0.50° is regarded as IB in a case the sulfide solid electrolyte material has a peak at the position of 2θ=27.33°±0.50°, a value of IB/IA is less than 0.50. When M1 is Li and M2 is P and Nb in the reference application, the sulfide solid electrolyte material reads on claims 1 and 3-5 of the application.
Regarding claim 11 of the instant application, claim 6 of the published patent recites a battery comprising: a cathode active material layer containing a cathode active material, an anode active material layer containing an anode active material, and an electrolyte layer formed between the cathode active material layer and the anode active material layer; wherein at least one of the cathode active material layer, the anode active material layer, and the electrolyte layer contains the sulfide solid electrolyte material according to claim 1.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 11 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 10388985.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following.
Regarding claims 1 and 3-5 of the instant application, claim 1 of the published patent recites a sulfide solid electrolyte material comprising: a composition of Li(4−x)(M2′(1−δ)Snδ)(1−x)PxS4, where M2′ represents the element selected from the group consisting of Si, Ge, Ti, Zr, Nb and combinations thereof, 0<δ≤1, and 0<x<1, wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte material has a peak at a position of 2θ=29.58°±0.50° in X-ray diffraction measurement using a CuKα ray; the sulfide solid electrolyte material satisfies conditions (i) or (ii): (i) the sulfide solid electrolyte material does not have a peak at a position of 2θ=27.33°±0.50° in X-ray diffraction measurement using a CuKα ray, or (ii) when a diffraction intensity at the peak of 2θ=29.58°±0.50° is regarded as IA and a diffraction intensity at a peak of 2θ=27.33°±0.50° is regarded as IB, a value of IBIA is less than 0.50 but not 0. When M2′ is Nb and condition (i) is satisfied in the reference patent, the sulfide solid electrolyte material reads on claims 1 and 3-5 of the application.
Regarding claim 11 of the instant application, claim 11 of the published patent recites a battery comprising: a cathode active material layer containing a cathode active material, an anode active material layer containing an anode active material, and an electrolyte layer formed between the cathode active material layer and the anode active material layer; wherein at least one of the cathode active material layer, the anode active material layer, and the electrolyte layer contains the sulfide solid electrolyte material according to claim 1.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 11 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 10, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 10033065.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following.
Regarding claims 1 and 3-5 of the instant application, claim 1 of the published patent recites a sulfide solid electrolyte material comprising an M1 element, an M2 element and a S element wherein the M1 comprises at least Li; the M2 is P, Si and an element other than P and Si; the other element is at least one selected from the group consisting of Sn, Ti, Zr, and Nb; the sulfide solid electrolyte material has a peak at a position of 29.58°±0.50° in X-ray diffraction measurement using a CuKα line; and when a diffraction intensity at the peak of 2θ=29.58°±0.50° is regarded as IA and a diffraction intensity at a peak of 2θ=27.33°±0.50° is regarded as IB, a value of IB/IA is less than 0.50, wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte material is represented by Li(4-x)(M2x(1-δ)Siδ)(1-x)Px(S1-yOy)4 (M2x is at least one selected from the group consisting of Sn, Zr, Ti and Nb, 0<x<1, 0≤y≤0.25, 0<δ<1). When M1 is Li and M2 is P, Si, and Nb in the reference patent, the sulfide solid electrolyte material reads on claims 1 and 3-5 of the application.
Regarding claims 1 and 3-5 of the instant application, claim 2 of the published patent recites a sulfide solid electrolyte material comprising an M1 element, an M2 element and a S element wherein the M1 comprises at least Li; the M2 is P, Si and an element other than P and Si; the other element is at least one selected from the group consisting of Sn, Ti, Zr, and Nb; the sulfide solid electrolyte material has a peak at a position of 29.58°±0.50° in X-ray diffraction measurement using a CuKα line; and either the sulfide solid electrolyte material has a peak at a position of 2θ=27.33°±0.50° in X-ray diffraction measurement using a CuKα line, and the sulfide solid electrolyte material does not have a peak at a position of 2θ=27.33°±0.50° in X-ray diffraction measurement using a CuKα line; or when a diffraction intensity at the peak of 2θ=29.58°±0.50° is regarded as IA and a diffraction intensity at a peak of 2θ=27.33°±0.50° is regarded as IB, a value of IB/IA is less than 0.50, wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte material is represented by Li(4-x)(M2x(1-δ)Siδ)(1-x)Px(S1-yOy)4 (M2x is at least one selected from the group consisting of Sn, Zr, Ti and Nb, 0<x<1, 0≤y≤0.25, 0<δ<1). When M1 is Li and M2 is P, Si, and Nb in the reference patent, the sulfide solid electrolyte material reads on claims 1 and 3-5 of the application.
Regarding claim 11 of the instant application, claim 10 of the published patent recites a battery comprising: a cathode active material layer containing a cathode active material, an anode active material layer containing an anode active material, and an electrolyte layer formed between the cathode active material layer and the anode active material layer; wherein at least one of the cathode active material layer, the anode active material layer, and the electrolyte layer contains the sulfide solid electrolyte material according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11 of the instant application, claim 17 of the published patent recites a battery comprising: a cathode active material layer containing a cathode active material, an anode active material layer containing an anode active material, and an electrolyte layer formed between the cathode active material layer and the anode active material layer; wherein at least one of the cathode active material layer, the anode active material layer, and the electrolyte layer contains the sulfide solid electrolyte material according to claim 2.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 11 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 9929433.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following.
Regarding claims 1 and 3-5 of the instant application, claim 1 of the published patent recites a sulfide solid electrolyte material comprising an M1 element, an M2 element and a S element, the M1 being a combination of Li and a divalent element of at least one kind selected from the group consisting of Mg, Ca and Zn, and the M2 being at least one kind selected from the group consisting of P, Sb, Si, Ge, Sn, B, Al, Ga, In, Ti, Zr, V and Nb, wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte material has a peak at a position of 2θ=29.58°±0.50° in X-ray diffraction measurement using a CuKα ray, does not have a peak at a position of 2θ=27.33°±0.50° in X-ray diffraction measurement using a CuKα ray, or when diffraction intensity at the peak of 2θ=29.58°±0.50° is regarded as IA and diffraction intensity at the peak of 2θ=27.33°±0.50° is regarded as IB in a case of having a peak at the position of 2θ=27.33°±0.50°, a value of IB/IA is less than 0.50. When M1 is Li and at least one kind selected from the group consisting of Mg, Ca and Zn and M2 is P and Nb in the reference patent, the sulfide solid electrolyte material reads on claims 1 and 3-5 of the application.
Regarding claim 11 of the instant application, claim 3 of the published patent recites a battery comprising: a cathode active material layer containing a cathode active material, an anode active material layer containing an anode active material, and an electrolyte layer formed between the cathode active material layer and the anode active material layer; wherein at least one of the cathode active material layer, the anode active material layer, and the electrolyte layer contains the sulfide solid electrolyte material according to claim 1.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 11 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 4-5 of U.S. Patent No. 9761908.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following.
Regarding claims 1 and 3-5 of the instant application, claim 1 of the published patent recites a sulfide solid electrolyte material comprising a Li element, an Me element (Me is at least one kind selected from the group consisting of Sb, Si, Ge, Sn, B, Al, Ga, In, Ti, Zr, V and Nb), a P element and a S element, wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte material has a peak at a position of 2θ=29.58°±0.50° in X-ray diffraction measurement using a CuKα ray; does not have a peak at a position of 2θ=27.33°±0.50° in X-ray diffraction measurement using a CuKα ray or when diffraction intensity at the peak of 2θ=29.58°±0.50° is regarded as IA and diffraction intensity at the peak of 2θ=27.33°±0.50° is regarded as IB in a case of having the peak at the position of 2θ=27.33°±0.50°, a value of IB/IA is less than 0.50. When Me is Nb in the reference patent, the sulfide solid electrolyte material reads on claims 1 and 3-5 of the application.
Regarding claims 1 and 3-5 of the instant application, claim 4 of the published patent recites a sulfide solid electrolyte material comprising a Li element, an Me element (Me is at least one kind selected from the group consisting of Sb, Si, Ge, Sn, B, Al, Ga, In, Ti, Zr, V and Nb), a P element and a S element, wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte material has a peak at a position of 2θ=29.58°±0.50° in X-ray diffraction measurement using a CuKα ray; does not have a peak at a position of 2θ=27.33°±0.50° in X-ray diffraction measurement using a CuKα ray or when diffraction intensity at the peak of 2θ=29.58°±0.50° is regarded as IA and diffraction intensity at the peak of 2θ=27.33°±0.50° is regarded as IB in a case of having the peak at the position of 2θ=27.33°±0.50°, a value of IB/IA is less than 0.5. When Me is Nb in the reference patent, the sulfide solid electrolyte material reads on claims 1 and 3-5 of the application.
Regarding claim 11 of the instant application, claim 2 of the published patent recites a battery comprising: a cathode active material layer containing a cathode active material, an anode active material layer containing an anode active material, and an electrolyte layer formed between the cathode active material layer and the anode active material layer; wherein at least one of the cathode active material layer, the anode active material layer, and the electrolyte layer contains the sulfide solid electrolyte material according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11 of the instant application, claim 5 of the published patent recites a battery comprising: a cathode active material layer containing a cathode active material, an anode active material layer containing an anode active material, and an electrolyte layer formed between the cathode active material layer and the anode active material layer; wherein at least one of the cathode active material layer, the anode active material layer, and the electrolyte layer contains the sulfide solid electrolyte material according to claim 4.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of co-pending Application No. 18/841879 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following.
Regarding claim 1 of the instant application, claim 1 of the co-pending application recites a sulfide solid electrolyte material, having the composition Li9.54[Si1-δMδ]1.74P1.44S11.1Br0.3O0.6 or Li9.54[Si1-δMδ]1.74P1.44S11.1Br0.3, wherein M is Ge, Sn, or Ti. Claim 5 of the co-pending application recites the sulfide solid electrolyte material of claim 1 having a peak at a position of 2θ=29.26±0.22° in X-ray diffraction measurement using CuKα radiation. When M is Ti, which is in group 4 of the periodic table, claim 5 of the co-pending application reads on claim 1 of the instant application.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kanno et. al (US 20130040208).
Regarding claim 1, Kanno teaches a sulfide solid electrolyte material comprising an M1 element, an M2 element, and a S element [abstract]. M1 is at least one kind selected from the group consisting of Li, Na, K, Mg, Ca, and Zn, and the above mentioned M2 is at least one kind selected from the group consisting of P, Sb, Si, Ge, Sn, B, Al, Ga, In, Ti, Zr, V, and Nb [0009]. The sulfide solid electrolyte material has a peak in a position of 2θ=29.58°±0.5° in an X-ray diffraction measurement using a CuKα line [0009]. The sulfide solid electrolyte material also has an IB/IA value of less the 0.5 when a diffraction intensity at the peak of 2θ=29.58°±0.5° is represented by IA and a diffraction intensity at a peak of 2θ=27.33°±0.5° is represented by IB [0009]. Kanno teaches one embodiment of a sulfide solid electrolyte where M1 is at least one kind selected form the group consisting of Li, Na, K, Mg, Ca, and Zn, and M2 is two elements, M2a and M2b, where each is independently at least one kind selected from the group consisting of P, Sb, Si, Ge, Sn, B, Al, Ga, In, Ti, Zr, V, and Nb [0016]. M2a corresponds to the claimed M2, and M2b corresponds to the claimed M3. When M1 is Li, M2a is a combination of P and either Ge or Si, and M2b is Nb, the sulfide solid electrolyte corresponds to the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 3-5, Kanno teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described. Kanno also teaches the sulfide solid electrolyte material example of Li3.5Ge0.25Nb0.25P0.5S4 [0177]. In this example the element M2b, which corresponds to the claimed element M3, is Nb which is a transition element of group 5.
Regarding claim 11, Kanno teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Kanno also teaches a battery comprising: a cathode (positive electrode) active material layer containing a cathode active material, an anode (negative electrode) active material layer containing an anode active material, and an electrolyte layer formed between the above-mentioned cathode active material layer and the above-mentioned anode active material layer, characterized in that at least one of the cathode active material layer, the anode active material layer, and the electrolyte layer contains the sulfide solid electrolyte material of claim 1 [0020].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanno et. al (US 20130040208) which was included in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), and as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kato et. al (US 10388985).
Regarding claim 2, Kanno teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Kanno is silent on the ratio of M3 to M2.
Kato teaches a sulfide solid electrolyte material comprising: a composition of Li(4−x)(M2′(1−δ)Snδ)(1−x)PxS4, where M2′ represents the element selected from the group consisting of Si, Ge, Ti, Zr, Nb and combinations thereof, 0<δ≤1, and 0<x<1, wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte material has a peak at a position of 2θ=29.58°±0.50° in X-ray diffraction measurement using a CuKα ray [claim 1]. Li corresponds to the claimed M1, Sn and P correspond to the claimed M2, and when M2’ is Ti, Zr, V, or Nb, M2’ corresponds to the claimed M3. Claim 1 of Kato reads on claim 1 of the instant application. When M2’ is Nb, the ratio of M3/M2 corresponds to the ratio of subscripts for Nb/(Sn+P). Kato teaches that 0.65 ≤x≤0.75 [claim 17]. Kato also teaches that the inclusion of Sn in the sulfide solid electrolyte material allows for high stability against moisture [column 2 lines 44-46]. Therefore, the amount of δ is preferably higher, closer to 1, in the above formula to have higher stability against moisture [column 19 lines 41-45]. Kato teaches that when δ is less than 1, the sulfide solid electrolyte material exhibited higher Li ion conductance than the case where δ equals 1, therefore, the value of δ is preferably less than 1 [column 20 lines 33-35]. If the value of x is constant the proportion of M3/M2 is influenced by the value of δ. When δ approaches but does not equal 1, the denominator of Nb/(Sn+P) increases and the numerator decreases. By adjusting the value of δ using the teachings of Kato, the ratio of M3/M2 can be tailored to be between the claimed values of 0.010 to 0.040. For example, if x=0.75 and δ=0.9, M3/M2=0.025. The motivation to increase the value of δ while still keeping it below the value of 1 is to increase stability against moisture while maintaining high Li ion conductance in the sulfide solid electrolyte material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sulfide solid electrolyte material taught by Kanno with the teachings of Kato to have a proportion M3/M2 of a content of the element M3 with respect to a content of element M2 from 0.010 to 0.040. The motivation to have this ratio is to increase the stability of the material against moisture while maintaining high Li ion conductivity in the sulfide solid electrolyte material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATALIE R ALTVATER whose telephone number is (571)270-3162. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 8:00 am - 4 pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291.
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.
/N.R.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights