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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-5 and 12 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected high-purity argyrodite-phase sulfide solid electrolyte and an all-solid-state battery, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 30th, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of a preparation method of high-purity argyrodite-phase sulfide solid electrolyte in the reply filed on July 30th, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 6-11, and 13-16 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.
Regarding Claim 6, Applicant recites, “a high-purity argyrodite-phase sulfide solid electrolyte”. Its unclear how the phrase, “high-purity” further limits the argyrodite-phase sulfide solid electrolyte or what type of limitation this would impart on the argyrodite-phase sulfide solid electrolyte. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claims 9-10, Applicant recites, “high-energy ball-milling”. Its unclear what corresponds to “high-energy” ball milling. Its not clear what type or amount of high energy would constitute as high energy. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 16, Applicant recites, “the organic solvent”. This phrase lacks antecedent basis. Applicant has not properly introduced into the preparation method an organic solvent. Appropriate action is required.
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 6-9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2024/0039043 A1).
In view of Claim 6, Kim et al. discloses a preparation method of a high purity argyrodite-phase sulfide solid electrolyte wherein the high-purity argyrodite phase sulfide solid electrolyte satisfies formula I (Paragraph 0029). For example, when a=0.5, b=0.5, q = 0.2 and x = 6, the material has the stochiometric ratio of Li6PS4.8O0.2Cl0.5Br0.5. Regarding the limitation that the high-purity argyrodite-phase sulfide solid electrolyte has, “a pure phase”, Applicant discloses in a preferred embodiment that the formula of the sulfide solid electrolyte takes the form of Li6PS4.8O0.2Cl0.5Br0.5 (Instant Specification – Page 6, Lines 6-7). Kim et al. teaches the same structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “a pure phase”. See MPEP 2112.01 I. Kim et al. also alternatively discloses that it has a cubic crystal structure, thus it’s a pure phase of cubic crystal structure (Fig.3 & Paragraph 0021, 0072).
Kim et al. discloses that the preparation method includes the following steps: preparing a lithium sulfide material (Paragraph 0071 – Li2S): weighting raw materials comprising the lithium sulfide material and an oxidant according to a molar ratio (Paragraph 0071 – Li2O – they are at a specific stochiometric ratio, thus they must be at a specific molar ratio which inherently represents a specific weight of each specific component in the formula), and mixing the raw materials (Paragraph 0071 – ball milled for 4 hours); and performing annealing sintering on the powder obtained in the previous step to obtain the high-purity argyrodite phase sulfide solid electrolyte (Paragraph 0072).
In view of Claim 7, Kim et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Kim et al. discloses that the method for preparing the lithium sulfide material comprises one or more of a ball milling method (Paragraph 0071).
In view of Claim 8, Kim et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Kim et al. discloses that the oxidant is one or more of Li2O (Paragraph 0071).
In view of Claim 9, Kim et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Kim et al. teaches that a method for mixing the raw material includes mechanical ball milling (Paragraph 0071). Additionally, this could be considered mechanical stirring or mechanical oscillation.
In view of Claim 11, Kim et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Kim et al. discloses that the annealing sintering is performed at 450°C for 12 hours (Paragraph 0071), thus anticipating a point in Applicant’s claimed range.
In view of Claim 13, Kim et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Regarding the limitation that “a room temperature ionic conductivity of the high purity argyrodite phase sulfide solid electrolyte is 1x10-3-8x10-2 S/cm”, Applicant discloses in a preferred embodiment that the formula of the sulfide solid electrolyte takes the form of Li6PS4.8O0.2Cl0.5Br0.5 (Instant Specification – Page 6, Lines 6-7). Kim et al. teaches the same structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “a room temperature ionic conductivity of the high purity argyrodite phase sulfide solid electrolyte is 1x10-3-8x10-2 S/cm”.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2024/0039043 A1) in view of Liang et al. (US 2022/0045358 A1).
In view of Claim 10, Kim et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Kim et al. discloses that the method for mixing the raw materials is ball milling for 4 hours but does not explicitly disclose the ball-material ratio being (1-60):1 or that the ball milling is carried out at a speed of 200-600 rpm.
Liang et al. discloses that a ball-material ratio being (1-60):1 (Paragraph 0062) and that the ball milling is carried out at a speed of 200-600 rpm (Paragraph 0064). Liang et al. discloses that through this ball milling treatment that the materials can be mixed more sufficiently and at the same time smashing can also be performed to refine the particles so as to improve the reactivity (Paragraph 0065). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have Kim et al. method for mixing the raw materials have the ball-material ratio being (1-60):1 and the ball milling carried out at a speed of 200-600 rpm for the advantages of utilizing a ball milling treatment that mixes the materials more sufficiently and at the same time performing smashing to refine the particles so as to improve the reactivity.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2024/0039043 A1) in view of (Chen CN-114597483-A). Chen is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 14, Kim et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Kim et al. discloses that the solid electrolyte is exposed to a dew point temperature of -50°C in a drying room for an overnight period (which would be considered more than 4 hours) (Paragraph 0074).
Chen discloses exposing a sulfide solid electrolyte to a dew point temperature of -40°C in a drying room for 4 hours (Page 4, Performance testing) and that the ionic conductivity does not decrease by more than 15% (page 1, last paragraph through page 2, lines 1-2). Chen discloses that the invention can improve a sulfide solid state electrolytes stability while at the same increasing its conductivity (page 1, Summary of the invention). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adopt Chen’s teachings into Kim et al. preparation method for the advantage of improving the stability of the high-purity argyrodite phase sulfide solid electrolyte while increasing its conductivity.
In view of Claim 15, Kim et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Kim et al. does not disclose that the material is soaked in an organic solvent at RT for 2 hours such that its ionic conductivity decreases by 20% or less
Chen discloses that a sulfide solid electrolyte is soaked in an organic solvent at RT for 2 hours such that its ionic conductivity decreases by 20% or less (Page 4, Performance testing) and that the ionic conductivity does not decrease by more than 15% (page 1, last paragraph through page 2, lines 1-2). Chen discloses that the invention can improve a sulfide solid state electrolytes stability while at the same increasing its conductivity (page 1, Summary of the invention). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adopt Chen’s teachings into Kim et al. preparation method for the advantage of improving the stability of the high-purity argyrodite phase sulfide solid electrolyte while increasing its conductivity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm 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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights