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 .
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.
Claims 1-8 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR2022/0036213) (for applicant’s convenience English equivalent US2023/0327186 has been used for citations) in view of Iseki (WO2023/167237) (for applicant’s convenience, English equivalent US2025/0183359 has been used for citations hereof).
Kim et al. teaches a method of producing a sulfide solid electrolyte material comprising preparing precursor mixture by mixing raw materials comprising a sulfur element, a lithium element and a phosphorus element with a solvent; removing a solvent from the precursor mixture to form a resultant product (i.e. an intermediate); and performing heat-treatment on the resultant product having the solvent removed therefrom (claim 1, 9-10, para. [0010], [0011], [0026], [0030], [0031], [0033], [0044]-[0056], example 1-3).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. does not expressly teach removing the solvent or drying via a spray drying.
Iseki teaches using instant drying method to dry precursor mixture for forming solid sulfide electrolyte can use spray drying (Fig. 2, para. [0240], [0242], [0243], [0264]-[0270]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known technique of spray drying as shown by Iseki to modify the drying step of Kim et al because adopting such well-known spray drying technique to modify a well-known drying step in a well-known solid sulfide electrolyte producing method for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR Rationale D).
Regarding claim 2-4, Kim et al. further teaches the raw material include Li2S and P2S5, solvent comprising THF (i.e. tetrahydrofuran), and raw material further comprising a lithium compound having a halogen element e.g. LiCl (para. [0050], [0051], [0150], [0151]).
Regarding claim 5, Kim et al. also expressly teaches solid content of the raw material was made to be 10% or 15% by weight (example 1-3).
Regarding claim 6, Iseki already teaches spray drying the raw material mixture in solvent through spraying the raw material into a chamber of spray dryer through a nozzle atomizer (Fig.2, para. [0265], [0266]).
Regarding claim 8 and 11-12, Iseki further teaches spray drying being performed under 60- 200 °C and drying time being 15 seconds or less (para. [0266], [0267]), while starting material can be spray into the dryer 1 to 50 g/min, since solvent being TFH which has a density about 0.9 g/ml, therefore, the starting material solid content being 10 -15% by weight, assuming the precursor material density being slightly higher than 0.9 g/ml, hence, the starting material being sprayed into the drier chamber range overlapping with that of instantly claimed rat of 50 ml/min to 70 ml/min, thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP §2144. 05 I). Iseki disclosed drying temperature and time respectively overlapping with instantly claimed drying temperature and time, thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP §2144. 05 I).
Regarding claim 7, as for the claimed evaporation quantity being 1kg/hr to 4 kg/hr, Iseki already teaches a same or substantially the same spray drying a same or substantially the same starting material (precursor material) into the drying chamber with same or substantially the same drying temperature and same or substantially the same drying time, therefore, same or substantially the same evaporation quantity as that of instantly claimed would be expected.
Regarding claim 13, Kim et al. also teaches heating the intermediate under temperature of 300 to 600 °C for 20 to 28 hours, like 24 hours (para. [0056], example 1-3).
Regarding claim 14-15, Kim et al. also teaches the obtained solid sulfide electrolyte material having D50 of 1.0 to 4.0 µm (para. [0063]) and a relative spam (i.e. (D90-D10)/D50 being 2.6 to 10, specifically 2.53, or 3 etc. (claim 11 and 18, para. [0062]-[0066], table 3).
Claim 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR2022/0036213) (for applicant’s convenience English equivalent US2023/0327186 has been used for citations) in view of Iseki (WO2023/167237) (for applicant’s convenience, English equivalent US2025/0183359 has been used for citations hereof) as applied above, and further in view of Ackerman (US2017/0120267).
Regarding claim 9, Kim et al in view of Iseki does not expressly teach the internal pressure of chamber ranging from 1.3 atm to 1.5 atm.
Ackerman teaches spray dryer system comprising a chamber (item 12, Fig. 5), electronic controller(s) (item 133, Fig. 5) used to control different components’ operation (para. [0088]), exhaust control valve (i.e. a vent valve) (item 175). Ackerman also teaches the spray drying system can also include sensors in communications with electronic controllers (para [0090]).
Ackerman also teaches that a vacuum or pressure level in the drying chamber can be controlled via selective control of the exhaust flow control valve and blower for particular drying operation of for the purpose of controlling the evaporation and exhaust of volatiles (para. [0110]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust spray chamber internal pressure as shown by Ackerman to modify the spray drying process of Kim et al in view of Iseki because by doing so can help obtaining a desired drying operation, such as controlling of evaporation etc. as suggested by Ackerman (para. [0110]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust spray chamber internal pressure being same range as that of instantly claimed via routine optimization (see MPEP §2144. 05 II) for help obtaining a desired drying operation with controlled evaporation etc. as suggested by Ackerman (para. [0110]).
Regarding claim 10, Iseki already teaches a spray dryer comprising a chamber defining an internal space of a preset size, a nozzle atomizer connected to chamber and configured to spray the starting material, a first compressor connected to the chamber and configured to supply a gas to thereby adjust an internal pressure of the chamber, a vent outlet for discharging the carrier gas outside of chamber (Fig. 2, para. [0264]-[0270]). Iseki does not expressly teach a second compressor, or a sensor mounted in the camber and configured to measure the internal pressure of the chamber, or a controller connected to the second compressor and the but Iseki already teaches another stream of gas being pumped into the spray drier (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt another (i.e. a second) compressor to supply carrier gas into the chamber because a second stream gas can be supplied into the drying chamber and adopting an additional well-known compressor to supply such gas into a well-known spray drying chamber for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR). Since applied prior art teaches same or substantially the same second compressor to supply a gas into the drying chamber, therefore, same or substantially the same function, i.e. adjusting an internal pressure of the chamber as that of instantly claimed is expected. Since Ackerman already teaches internal pressure of the chamber can be controlled for internal pressure, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt a conventional sensor (like a pressure sensor) to measure the internal pressure of the drying chamber thus ensure desired internal pressure for spray drying.
Iseki already teaches a discharging line being at the bottom of the spray dryer for discharging the carrier gas wherein a vent is envisioned thereof. Ackerman further discloses discharge valve being used to discharging exhaust from the drying chamber and using such discharge valve to control the internal pressure of the drying chamber, electronic controller can be used to automatically control components operation in the drying system.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt well-known exhaust charge valve as shown by Ackerman to modify the venting of the spray dryer of Kim et al. in view of Iseki because adopting such well-known discharging valve to modify a well-known spray dryer venting for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt well-known controllers connected to a second compressor and the exhaust discharge valve (i.e. vent valve) to control whether to operate the second compressor and exhaust discharge valve thus controlling the drying chamber internal pressure because combining prior art elements of controllers, vent valve, compressor according to known methods of spray drying would yield predictable result (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR2022/0036213) (for applicant’s convenience English equivalent US2023/0327186 has been used for citations) in view of Iseki (WO2023/167237) (for applicant’s convenience, English equivalent US2025/0183359 has been used for citations hereof) as applied above, and further in view of Kimpara (WO2023/276860) (for applicant’s convenience, English equivalent US2024/0322223 has been used for citations hereof).
Regarding claim 16, Kim et al. in view of Iseki does not expressly teach the sulfide based solid electrolyte having a tap density from 0.5 g/ml to 0.7 g/ml.
Kimpara teaches sulfide solid electrolyte powder having a degree of compaction shown by the following expression of 0.400 or more: (Degree of compaction) = ((packed bulk density) −(aerated bulk density))/(packed bulk density), and the sulfide solid electrolyte powder having an aerated bulk density of 0.050 g/cm3 or more and 1.000 g/cm3 or less (para. [0055]-[0067]), such teachings suggest a compact density range being overlapping with that of instantly claimed tap density. Kimpara disclosed compact density reads onto the instantly claimed tap density, and such compact density range overlaps with that of instantly claimed tap density thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness ((see MPEP §2144. 05 I).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary kill in the art to adopt such compact density range as shown by Kimpara to modify the sulfide based solid electrolyte of Kim et al. in view of Iseki because by doing so can help ensure sulfite based solid electrolyte having certain compaction degree (being 0.4 or more) thus the dispersibility and the coatability of the sulfide solid electrolyte can be enhanced for improved battery energy density as suggested by Kimpara (para. [0057], [0067]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR2022/0036213) (for applicant’s convenience English equivalent US2023/0327186 has been used for citations) in view of Iseki (WO2023/167237) (for applicant’s convenience, English equivalent US2025/0183359 has been used for citations hereof) as applied above, and further in view of Sohn (US2023/0019090).
Regarding claim 17, Kim et al. in view of Iseki does not expressly teach the sulfide based solid electrolyte having a pellet density from 1.65 g/ml to 1.8 g/ml. But Kim et al already teaches the sulfide based solid electrolyte material having same or substantially the same particle size (i.e. same pellet size) as discussed above.
Sohn teaches a sulfide solid electrolyte material having a density in a range of about 1.25 g/cc to about 1.75 g/cc (para. [0080]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary kill in the art to adopt such density range as shown by Sohn to modify the sulfide based solid electrolyte of Kim et al. in view of Iseki because by doing so can help decrease the internal resistance of all solid secondary material thus effectively suppressing penetration of the slid electrolyte by Li ions as suggested by Sohn (para. [0080]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/JUN LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights