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 .
SULFIDE SOLID ELECTROLYTE
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/578,874 Art Unit: 1727 June 3, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
The Application filed January 12, 2024 has been received. Claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Takahashi et al. (WO 2021/049414 A1; as found in IDS dated 03/18/24 and using US 2022/0131183 A1 for citation purposes and as found in IDS dated 03/18/24).
As to Claims 1, Takahashi discloses a sulfide solid electrolyte, comprising: lithium, phosphorus, sulfur and chlorine or bromine and has a diffraction peak at 2θ = 20.7º and 22.5º (Abstract and paragraphs [0032-0035]).
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the solid electrolyte of Takahashi to comprise the claimed peaks because Takahashi teaches that an improved solid electrolyte with a reduced formation of hydrogen sulfide is provided (paragraphs [0005 and 0027]).
As to Claim 2, Takahashi discloses wherein the electrolyte has a peak at greater than 31º and at 32.5º (Fig. 1, examples 1-2).
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the solid electrolyte of Takahashi to comprise the claimed peaks because Takahashi teaches that an improved solid electrolyte with a reduced formation of hydrogen sulfide is provided (paragraphs [0005 and 0027]).
As to Claim 3, Takahashi does not specifically disclose the claimed peaks. However, it is the position of the Office that the electrolyte of Takahashi intrinsically comprises the claimed peaks because the solid electrolyte of the prior art and the claimed invention have the same stoichiometry, see MPEP 2112.
As to Claim 4, Takahashi discloses wherein the electrolyte has the formula LiaPSbXc; wherein X is Cl or Br, a can be 3; b can be 3.5; and c can be 0.1 (paragraphs [0032-0035]).
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the solid electrolyte of Takahashi to comprise the claimed formula because Takahashi teaches that an improved solid electrolyte with a reduced formation of hydrogen sulfide is provided (paragraphs [0005 and 0027]).
As to Claim 5, it is the position of the Office that the electrolyte of Takahashi intrinsically comprises the claimed peak because the solid electrolyte of the prior art and the claimed invention have the same stoichiometry, see MPEP 2112.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 10-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shibata et al. (US 2021/0249685 A1; as found in IDS dated 03/18/24).
As to Claims 6-8, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18, Shibata discloses a method of making a sulfide solid electrolyte, comprising: mixing a solvent (such as DBE, DEE or DIPE which have heteroatoms) and a raw material of lithium sulfide and phosphorus sulfide; mixing a solvent (such as DBE, DEE or DIPE which have heteroatoms) and a raw material comprising lithium chloride or lithium bromide; and heating the mixture at 140ºC (Abstract, paragraphs [0035, 0040], Table 1).
As to Claim 11, Shibata teaches wherein the amount of lithium halide compared to the total raw material is 0-40 mol% (60-100 mol% for the lithium sulfide and phosphorus sulfide) (paragraph [0046]). Shibata further teaches wherein the amount is a result-effective variable that is optimized to provide for enhanced ionic conductivity (paragraph [0047]). The courts have held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05, II, B. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the amount of lithium halide of Shibata to comprise the claimed amount because Shibata teaches that ionic conductivity can be increased and hydrogen sulfide generation suppressed (Abstract and paragraph [0047]).
As to Claims 13 and 17, Shibata discloses acetonitrile as a solvent (paragraph [0068]).
As to Claim 15 and 19, Shibata teaches wherein the amount of solvent is a result-effective variable that is optimized to provide an increased ionic conductivity (paragraphs [0047] and Table 1). In addition, the claims do not exclude the solvents from being the same solvent. The courts have held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05, II, B. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the amount of solvent of Shibata to comprise the claimed amount because Shibata teaches that ionic conductivity can be increased and hydrogen sulfide generation suppressed (Abstract and paragraph [0047]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al. (US 2021/0249685 A1; as found in IDS dated 03/18/24) in view of Nishimura et al. (US 2015/0017550 A1).
As to Claim 9, Shibata does not specifically disclose the claimed ratio of lithium sulfide to phosphorus sulfide.
However, Nishimura teaches of a sulfide solid electrolyte that is made from using a molar ratio of lithium sulfide to phosphorus sulfide of 80:20 to 50:50 (paragraph [0107]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of making the solid electrolyte of Shibata to comprise the claimed molar ratio because Nishimura teaches that an improved solid electrolyte safety with improved ion conductivity is provided (paragraphs [0010 and 0108]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET.
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 (571)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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights