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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment submitted 12/08/2023 was received and will be examined on its merits herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted 12/08/2023 (x2), 03/05/2025, and 08/22/2025 were received and have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted 12/08/2023 were received and are approved by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama et al. (U.S. 20220359910, presented in IDS submitted 12/08/2023) in view of Sung et al. (U.S. 20190051931).
With respect to claims 1-4 and 7, Nakayama discloses a sulfide-based solid electrolyte ([abstract]) containing a Group 2 element (Calcium (Ca), thus reading on claims 3-4, [0028]) and having an argyrodite-type crystal structure ([0041]),
wherein the sulfide-based solid electrolyte is represented by Li7-x-2yMyPS6-xHax, wherein M represents at least one element selected from Group 2 elements, Ha is at least one element selected from halogen elements and includes Br, and x and y satisfy 0 < x < 2.5 and 0 < y < 0.45 (and 0 < y < 0.1, thus reading on claim 2; based on Calcium lithium bromide chloride phosphorotetrathioate sulfide) ([0043-0045]).
Nakayama does not disclose that the sulfide-based solid electrolyte has a lattice volume of from 950 to 980 Å3, or from 958 to 966 Å3 (claim 7).
Sung discloses a sulfide-based solid electrolyte ([abstract]) and teaches that lattice volume is a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. Specifically, Sung teaches that “The lattice volume means a space of the lattice defect as described above in such a solid electrolyte, and such a space forms a three-dimensional channel between the crystal lattice, and ion conduction becomes possible by placing cations in such a channel,” ([0036]), and “The larger the lattice volume, the more channels that are more suitable for ion transport are formed, and thus ion conductivity is improved,” ([0037]). Applicant is reminded that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Since the sulfide-based solid electrolyte material disclosed by Nakayama is essentially identical in structure to that of the prior art, and Sung teaches that lattice volume is a result-effective variable for sulfide-based solid electrolytes, it is not inventive to discover optimum lattice volume ranges of sulfide-based solid electrolyte materials.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to ensure the lattice volume of the solid electrolyte disclose by Nakayama was in the claimed range as lattice volume is a result-effective variable, and therefore, its optimum range discovered by routine experimentation is not patentable.
Applicant is reminded that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
With respect to claim 5, Nakayama discloses the sulfide-based solid electrolyte has an ion conductivity of 0.561 mS/cm to 4.44 mS/cm (Table 1, Examples 1-7, [0136]), thus overlapping the claimed range of 2 or more mS/cm.
Applicant is reminded that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
With respect to claim 6, Nakayama discloses the sulfide-based solid electrolyte does not comprise any impurity phase other than argyrodite phase (“The sulfide solid electrolyte of the present invention may contain one crystal phase corresponding to the crystal phase of the present invention… It is preferable that the crystal phase of the present invention has an argyrodite-type crystal structure,” ([0041]).
With respect to claim 8, Nakayama discloses a method for preparing the sulfide-based solid electrolyte (Example 1, [0080]) as defined claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1), the method comprising:
mixing a lithium source (Li.sub.2S powder), a Group 2 element source (a MgS powder), a phosphorus source (P.sub.2S.sub.5 powder), a sulfur source (P.sub.2S.sub.5 powder) and a halogen (a LiCl powder, a LiBr powder) source to obtain a mixture ([0080]); and
firing the mixture under inert atmosphere at a temperature at 300℃ and 500℃ ([0080]), thus being encompassed by the claimed range of from 250 to 600℃.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN E BERRESFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-0641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (572)272-1330. 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.
/J.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights