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 .
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.
Election/Restriction
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species
A – the first nonmetal element is oxygen
B – the first nonmetal element is sulfur
C – the first nonmental element is nitrogen
D – the nonmental element is a halogen
The species are independent or distinct because they are mutually exclusive. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claims 15, 17, 30 and 32-34 are generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
--the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with James Austin on 2/5/2026 a provisional election was made to prosecute the invention of Species A, claims 15-21 and 30-34. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 22-29 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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) 15-19, 21 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yersak (US 2018/0309166).
Regarding claims 15-19, 21 and 31, Yersak discloses a method of making a protected sulfide solid electrolyte, comprising:
providing a sulfide glass sheet having first and second opposing principal side surfaces (see paragraph 7 which discloses a solid electrolyte comprising a sulfide glass);
depositing a first protective metal layer onto the first principal side surface of the glass sheet (see paragraph 17 which discloses laying down a layer of aluminum on top of the electrolyte); and
converting the first protective metal layer to a first converted protective compound layer comprising a first metal element and a first nonmetal element (see paragraph 17 which discloses that after the aluminum layer is laid down, it is reacted with oxygen/dissociated ozone to form an alumina/aluminum oxide layer);
wherein the first metal element is the metal of the first protective metal layer (aluminum which forms the protective aluminum oxide layer).
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) 30 and 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yersak (US 2018/0309166) in view of Visco (US 2019/0013546).
Regarding claim 30, Yersak teaches coating the aluminum oxide layer on only one side of the sulfide glass electrolyte (the anode side) and does not teach:
depositing a second protective metal layer onto the second principal side surface of the glass sheet; and
converting the second protective metal layer to a second converted protective compound layer comprising a second metal element and a second nonmetal element; wherein the second metal element is the metal of the second protective metal layer.
Visco also discloses a battery comprising a sulfide glass solid electrolyte (see abstract).
Visco goes on to teach, like Yersak, a sulfide glass solid electrolyte (see abstract) and teaches that the solid electrolyte is manufactured with a film layer (nanofilm layer 102 which can be aluminum oxide, paragraph 178) around both the entire solid electrolyte including the first and second major surfaces (as depicted in Fig. 2A). Visco teaches layering both sides of the electrolyte in order to protect the solid electrolyte from water and unwanted reactions with the moisture sensitive sulfide glass electrolyte (paragraph 51).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the aluminum oxide layer of Yersak to all surfaces of the sulfide glass solid electrolyte in order to protect the solid electrolyte from water and unwanted reactions with the moisture sensitive sulfide glass electrolyte. Such a modification would also teach:
converting the second protective metal layer to a second converted protective compound layer comprising a second metal element and a second nonmetal element; wherein the second metal element is the metal of the second protective metal layer (as the process for layering the first layer, as described in the rejection of claim 15 above, would also be utilized in producing the layer on the other major surface of the electrolyte).
Regarding claims 32-34, Yersak further discloses first nonmetal element is oxygen and the first metal is aluminum (as in the aluminum oxide that is produced as a result of the reaction of aluminum with ozone, as described in the rejection of claim 15 above).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yersak (US 2018/0309166) in view of Mukherjee (US 2020/0287232).
Regarding claim 20, Yersak teaches forming an aluminum oxide layer by reacting ozone with aluminum but does not explicitly teach utilizing an oxygen plasma.
Mukherjee also discloses a battery manufacturing process (see abstract).
Mukherjee, like Yersak, teaches passivating an aluminum surface to form aluminum oxide and teaches that such a passivation layer can be formed by a number of different processes including the use of an oxygen plasma (paragraph 197).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the passivating process of Yersak with the oxygen plasma process of Mukherjee as such a modification would be nothing more than a simple substitution of one known passivating process for another to yield entirely predictable results.
Relevant Prior Art
CN 102197157 A – Discloses the generation of an aluminum oxide layer in a battery by utilizing an oxygen plasma process but is silent regarding a sulfide glass electrolyte.
Conclusion
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