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 statement (IDS) submitted on 12/06/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 9-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2 has an open square bracket in line 3. Instead of “Formula I]” it appears that the claim should read “[Formula I]”.
Claim 9 refers to “a compound of claim 1” which should read “the compound of claim 1” since the compound has already been described in claim 1.
Claim 10 refers to “An electrode comprising a composition” which should read “An electrode comprising the composition” since the composition has been described in a previous claim.
Claim 11 refers to “A battery comprising a composition” which should read “A battery comprising the composition” since the composition has been described in a previous claim.
Claim 12 refers to “an electrode of claim 10” which should read “the electrode of claim 10” since the electrode has already been described in claim 10.
Claim 13 refers to “an electrolyte of claim 2” which should read “the electrolyte of claim 2” since the electrolyte has already been described in claim 2.
Claim 14 refers to “a battery of claim 12” which should read “the battery of claim12” since the battery has already been described in claim 12
The above claims have been interpreted with above suggestions applied. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
Figure 4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 4-8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4-8 recite the limitation "The solid electrolyte of claim 1" in the first line of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no solid electrolyte recited in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the examiner has interpreted the preamble in claims 4-8 of “The solid electrolyte of claim 1” to be “The solid electrolyte of claim 2”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the composition of claim 1”, but there is no composition in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the examiner has interpreted the limitation to read ”the composition of claim 9”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the composition of claim 1” but there is no composition in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the examiner has interpreted the limitation to read ”the composition of claim 9”.
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.
Claims 1-3, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yashiro et. al (US 20200373609).
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 9, Yashiro teaches an electrolyte of the formula LixM’yPSzAw where x, y, z, and w are each 0 or more and about 6 or less; M’ includes As, Ge, Ga, Si, Al, In, Ti, V, Nd, Ta or a combination; and A includes F, Cl, Br, I, or a combination [0077]. When x is 2; y is 1; z is 4; w is 2; M’ is In, Al, or Ga; and A is Cl, Br, or I; the formula taught by Yashiro reads on Formula 1 of claim 1. The examiner has interpreted “a compound” recited in claim 1 to take on its ordinary and customary meaning as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art, which is a substance made from two or more different elements that have been chemically joined. The solid electrolyte taught by Yashiro reads on the compound of claim 1 and the solid electrolyte of claim 2. This solid electrolyte taught by Yashiro may further contain a binder which reads on the composition of claim 9 [0080]. Due to the overlapping ranges of the subscripts, the formula taught by Yashiro encompasses Formula 1.
Regarding claim 3, Yashiro teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as described above. In the formula taught by Yashiro , when x is2; y is 1; z is 4; w is2; M’ is In; A is Cl, Br, or I, the solid electrolyte is Li2InPS4Cl2, Li2InPS4Br2, or Li2InPS4I2 [0077].
Regarding claims 10 and 12, Yashiro teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 as described above. Yashiro also teaches a battery containing a positive electrode, negative electrode, and electrolyte of the composition described previously in claim 1 [0039]. Regarding the preamble of claim 10 “An electrode…”, it is noted that this recited limitation is interpreted as a statement of an intended use of the claimed chemical formula, where the body of the claim fully sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention rather than any distinct limitations on the claimed invention. See MPEP 2111.02(II). The material represented by the chemical formula recited by Yashiro is capable of being used as an electrode as recited in the preamble of claim 10 which therefore satisfies all the limitations of claim 10.
Regarding claims 11, 13, and 14, Yashiro teaches all of the limitations of claims 2, 9, and 12 as described above. Yashiro also teaches a secondary battery that contains the solid electrolyte (composition) [0039, claim 19 of Yashiro]. This secondary battery with the solid electrolyte is an all-solid-state battery [0075, claim 19 of Yashiro]. The battery can be used in a vehicle such as a hybrid or electric vehicle [0101].
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barker et. al (US 20030027049).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Barker teaches an electrode active material of the formula AaMb(XY4)cZd where A can be Li, and 0˂a≤8 [0014]; M is a metal from Group 3 or Group 13 which includes indium [0034], and 1≤b≤3 [0015]; X can be P; Y can be S, and 0˂c≤3 [0016]; Z can be a halogen which includes Cl, Br, and I, and 0˂d≤6 [0017]. When A is Li; a is 2; M is In, Al, Ga, Sc, or Y; b is 1; X is P; Y is S; each Z is Cl, Br, or I; and d is 2; the formula taught by Barker reads on Formula 1 of claim 1. Due to the overlapping ranges of the subscripts, the formula taught by Barker encompasses Formula 1. The examiner has interpreted “a compound” recited in claim 1 to take on its ordinary and customary meaning as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art, which is a substance made from two or more different elements that have been chemically joined. The electrode active material taught by Barker reads on the compound of claim 1, and the electrode taught by Barker may contain carbon and/or a binder in addition to the active material which reads on the composition of claim 9 [0126].
Regarding claim 2, Barker teaches an active material of the formula AaMb(XY4)cZd [0025, 0012] where A can be lithium and 0˂a≤8 [0014]; M is a metal from Group 3 or Group 13 which includes indium [0034] and 1≤b≤3 [0015]; X can be P; Y can be S, and 0˂c≤3 [0016]; Z can be a halogen which includes Cl, Br, and I and 0˂d≤6 [0017]. When A is Li; a is 2; M is In, Al, Ga, Sc, or Y; b is 1; X is P; Y is S; each Z is Cl, Br, or I; and d is 2; the formula taught by Barker reads on Formula 1 of claim 2. Due to the overlapping ranges of the subscripts, the formula taught by Barker encompasses Formula 1.
Regarding the preamble of claim 2 “A solid electrolyte…”, it is noted that this recited limitation is interpreted as a statement of an intended use of the claimed chemical formula, where the body of the claim fully sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention rather than any distinct limitations on the claimed invention. See MPEP 2111.02(II). The material represented by the chemical formula recited by Barker is capable of being used as a solid electrolyte as recited in the preamble of claim 2 which therefore satisfies all the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, Barker teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as described above. Barker also teaches that, in one preferred embodiment of the active material, the anion species is XY4 having a charge of -2, -3, or -4 [0039]. When X is P and Y is S, the anion taught by Barker is PS43- [0071 ]. Therefore, at least one anion cluster in the solid electrolyte is PS43-.
Regarding claim 8, Barker teaches the active material (solid electrolyte) as described above in claim 2. Barker also teaches that the Li ions are intercalated between the electrodes [0009]. This intercalation or transfer of ions between electrodes requires movement of the ions through the electrolyte that is interposed between the electrodes [0156]. Barker also teaches that the anion species PS43- is present in the material and that the material may have a lattice structure [0039, 0043]. The solid electrolyte has a lattice or crystal structure, indicating that the components have a repeating pattern which can be embodied as a plurality of rows. Therefore, Barker teaches a plurality of anion clusters arranged in a plurality of rows with a moving pathway of lithium anions between the plurality of rows.
Regarding claims 10-12, Barker teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 as described above. Barker also teaches that the composition described in claim 9 above can be used as an electrode active material in an electrode for a battery [0025, 0126]. Barker further teaches that the electrode described in claim 10 can be used in a battery [0020, 0134-0136].
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Tang et. al (Dalton Trans. 2022, 51, 12: 4728-4733) which was included in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Tang teaches the structure of an inorganic metal chalcohalide, which is the combination of a chalcogenide and a halide, Cs2InPS4X2 (X = Cl, Br) [pg. 1]. Tang also teaches that chalcogens can contain Li [pg. 1]. Tang does not explicitly teach the above formula with Li. The structure taught by Tang, Cs2InPS4X2 (X = Cl, Br) can be substituted with Li in place of Cs since both atoms have the same valance and are in the same group in the periodic table. One motivation to substitute Li with Cs is the significantly lower cost of Li compared to Cs. When Li is substituted for Cs, the compound taught by Tang is Li2InPS4X2 (X = Cl, Br) which reads on claim 1. Tang also teaches that this compound can be used in various applications such as semiconductors which reads on the composition of claim 9 [pg. 1].
Regarding claim 2, Tang teaches the structure of an inorganic metal chalcohalide, which is the combination of a chalcogenide and a halide, Cs2InPS4X2 (X = Cl, Br) [pg. 1]. Tang also teaches that chalcogens can contain Li [pg. 1]. Tang does not explicitly teach the above formula with Li. The structure taught by Tang, Cs2InPS4X2 (X = Cl, Br) can be substituted with Li in place of Cs since both atoms have the same valance and are in the same group in the periodic table. One motivation to substitute Li with Cs is the significantly lower cost of Li compared to Cs. When Li is substituted for Cs, the compound taught by Tang is Li2InPS4X2 (X = Cl, Br) which reads on claim 1.
Regarding the preamble of claim 2 “A solid electrolyte…”, it is noted that this recited limitation is interpreted as a statement of an intended use of the claimed chemical formula, where the body of the claim fully sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention rather than any distinct limitations on the claimed invention. See MPEP 2111.02(II). The material represented by the chemical formula recited by Barker is capable of being used as a solid electrolyte as recited in the preamble of claim 2 which therefore satisfies all the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Tang teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above. When Li is substituted for Cs, the compound taught by Tang becomes Li2InPS4Cl2 and Li2InPS4Br2 which reads on claim 3.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Tang teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as described above. Tang also teaches that the crystal structure for Cs2InPS4X2 (X = Cl, Br) is monoclinic in the P21/n space group [pg. 2]. When Li is substituted for Cs to arrive at Li2InPS4X2 (X = Cl, Br), the structures can be reasonably expected to have similar properties based on their similar chemical structures. Se MPEP 2144.09(I). Given that Li and Cs are in the same group in the periodic table and their valance is the same, their substitution will reasonably result in the same crystal structure. The structure taught by Tang, Cs2InPS4X2 (X = Cl, Br) can be substituted with Li in place of Cs and retain a monoclinic structure in the P21/n space group.
Regarding claim 6, Tang teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as described above. Tang also teaches that Cs2InPS4X2 (X = Cl, Br) has anions PS43- and InS4X27- (X = Cl Br) [pg. 5]. When Li is substituted for Cs to arrive at Li2InPS4X2 (X = Cl, Br), the structures can be reasonably expected to have similar properties based on their similar chemical structures. Se MPEP 2144.09(I). The structure taught by Tang, Cs2InPS4X2 (X = Cl, Br) can be substituted with Li in place of Cs and have anion clusters of PS43- and InS4X27- (X = Cl Br).
Regarding claim 7, Tang teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as described above. Tang also teaches that Cs2InPS4X2 (X = Cl, Br) has anions PS43- and InS4X27- (X = Cl Br) where the crystal structure is made of a tetragonal structure (first polyhedron) of PS43- ions and an octahedron structure (second polyhedron) of InS4X27- (X = Cl, Br) ions which are connected while sharing an edge [pg. 5]. When Li is substituted for Cs to arrive at Li2InPS4X2 (X = Cl, Br), the structures can be reasonably expected to have similar properties based on their similar chemical structures. Se MPEP 2144.09(I). The structure taught by Tang, Cs2InPS4X2 (X = Cl, Br) can be substituted with Li in place of Cs and have a first polyhedron made of PS43- and a second polyhedron made of InS4X27- (X = Cl, Br) that are connected while sharing an edge.
Regarding claim 8, Tang teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as described above. Tang also teaches that the anions are arranged in tetragonal structures of PS43- and octahedron structures of InS4X27- (X = Cl, Br) which are connected while sharing an edge [pg. 5]. This crystal configuration reads on the plurality of anion clusters arranged in a plurality of rows [Figure 3]. Tang also teaches that the Cs ions are present in the intervening voids of the crystal structure which reads on the moving pathway of ions between the plurality of rows [pg. 4]. When Li is substituted for Cs to arrive at Li2InPS4X2 (X = Cl, Br), the structures can be reasonably expected to have similar properties based on their similar chemical structures. Se MPEP 2144.09(I). The structure taught by Tang, Cs2InPS4X2 (X = Cl, Br) can be substituted with Li in place of Cs to then have Li ions moving in the spaces between the plurality of anion cluster rows.
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