DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi et al. (US 2022/0352488).
Regarding claim 1, Kikuchi teaches a method of manufacturing inorganic material comprising:
crushing first inorganic material using a ball mill to obtain second inorganic material (para 0064).
The first inorganic material includes solid electrolyte material (para 0027), specifically sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material (para 0029). The first inorganic material is crushed in a dry state (para 0067) and in an inert atmosphere (para 0069). The inert atmosphere refers to a vacuum atmosphere or an inert atmosphere and, in order to avoid contact with water, the dew point is preferably -30o C or lower (para 0070), which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range of -70 to -30o C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the recited dew point because a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, "[ A ] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Kikuchi teaches the inert atmosphere refers to a vacuum atmosphere or an inert atmosphere (para 0069).
Kikuchi does not expressly teach an oxygen concentration of 0.1 ppm to less than 5%.
However, no vacuum is perfect and at least trace amount of oxygen would be present in the system significantly close at least to Applicant’s lower claimed range of 0.1 ppm.
Regarding claim 3, Kikuchi teaches an average particle size (d50) of most preferably 0.50 µm to 4 µm (para 0085).
Regarding claim 7, Kikuchi teaches wherein no organic substance is attached to a particle surface of the sulfide solid electrolyte powder (para 0067).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi et al. (US 2022/0352488) in view of Zhang et al. (ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2017, 9, 28542-28548).
Regarding claim 2, Kikuchi teaches the inert atmosphere refers to a vacuum atmosphere or an inert atmosphere (para 0069).
Kikuchi does not expressly teach an oxygen concentration of 0.1 ppm to less than 5%.
Zhang, directed to an all-solid state lithium battery based on sulfide ceramic electrolytes, teaches milling in a dry Ar-filled glovebox with an oxygen concentration less than 1 ppm (Experimental Section), which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range of 0.1 ppm to 5%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the recited oxygen concentration because a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, "[ A ] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi et al. (US 2022/0352488) in view of Nakayama et al. (US 2023/0037508).
Regarding claim 4, Kikuchi does not teach specific surface area.
Nakayama, directed to sulfide solid electrolyte, teaches a sulfide solid electrolyte having a reduced specific surface area (abstract) most preferably 6.0 m2/g to 8.0 m2/g (para 0083).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the recited surface area because to reduce the area of the surface where the reaction between the solid electrolyte and atmospheric moisture occurs and thus suppress the progress of the reaction (para 0013; para 0084).
Regarding claim 5, Kikuchi teaches a ball mill (para 0064).
Kikuchi does not teach a jet mill.
Nakayama teaches both a ball mill and a jet mill (para 0124).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute one milling device for another used for the same.
Regarding claim 6, Kikuchi does not teach an argyrodite crystal structure.
Nakayama further teaches a sulfide solid electrolyte containing a crystal phase having an argyrodite-type crystal structure has been known (para 0003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have an argyrodite-type crystal structure where the addition of F, Cl, and Br improves lithium-ion conductivity of the sulfide solid electrolyte (para 0064).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS BARCENA whose telephone number is (571)270-5780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-5 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)272-3066. 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.
/CARLOS BARCENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights