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 statements (IDS) submitted on 03/27/2024 and 10/30/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nakayama et al. (US 2022/0263122 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nakayama discloses a method form manufacturing a sulfide solid electrolyte powder (Claim 12 states the claimed invention provides a method of producing a sulfide solid electrolyte.), the method comprising:
preparing a slurry containing a sulfide solid electrolyte material and a liquid medium (Para. [0141] describes a slurry being made which contains a sulfide solid electrolyte material (thermally-treated product) and a liquid medium (toluene).); and
pulverizing the sulfide solid electrolyte material in the slurry in one stage by a ball mill using a pulverization ball having a diameter of 0.5 mm to 4 mm (Para. [0141] describes a process of pulverizing a sulfide solid electrolyte material in the slurry wherein a pulverization ball (0.8 mm ZrO2 balls) were placed and the pulverization ball pulverized the mixture at a rate of 100 rpm for 10 minutes.) to obtain a sulfide solid electrolyte powder having a particle diameter D99 of 15 µm or less. Examiner takes the position that a D95 particle size of 1.46 µm as shown in Example 1 will necessarily yield a D99 of less than 15 µm as particle size distributions follow a normal distribution curve. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have milled the material until the D99 is below 15 µm because this will make it possible to suppress generation of particles which are distorted in shape and fine particles and obtain a sulfide solid electrolyte having a small particle size and a reduced specific area (para. [0079]) and use of known techniques to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious. See MPEP 2141. III. (C).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Nakayama discloses wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte powder obtained after the pulverization has a particle diameter D50 of 1.5 µm or less of instant claim 2, and furthermore, wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte powder obtained after the pulverization has a particle diameter D50 of 0.4 µm to 0.9 µm, of instant claim 3 (Example 1 on Table 1 displays the chemical compound Li5.4PS4.4Cl0.8Br0.8 as a pulverized product wherein the particle diameter D50 of the pulverized product is 0.65 µm.).
Regarding claim 4, Nakayama discloses wherein the slurry has a solid content concentration of 5 mass% to 40 mass% (Para. [0141] lists the compounds present in the slurry for Example 1 which include 2 grams of the solid electrolyte, 0.06 grams of the dispersion agent, and 10 grams of super dehydrated toluene. Using these parameters, the equation to determine the solid content concentration would be
T
o
t
a
l
w
e
i
g
h
t
o
f
s
o
l
i
d
c
o
m
p
o
u
n
d
s
T
o
t
a
l
w
e
i
g
h
t
o
f
a
l
l
c
o
m
p
o
u
n
d
s
i
n
s
l
u
r
r
y
∙ 100%, which if filled in would be
(
2
+
0.06
)
(
2
+
0.06
+
10
)
∙ 100% = 17 mass%.).
Regarding claim 5, Nakayama discloses wherein a time of the pulverization is 120 minutes or less (Para. [0141] states that one of the steps for manufacturing the chemical compound of Example 1 is to pulverize the slurry wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte powder is dispersed within at a rotation rate of 100 rpm for 10 minutes.).
Regarding claim 7, Nakayama discloses wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte material before the pulverization has a particle diameter Dmax of 200 µm or less (Table 1 displays Example 1 which is comprised of a sulfide solid electrolyte powder wherein the diameter D95 value is 3.99 prior to the pulverization treatment. Examiner takes the position that a D95 particle size of 16.55 µm of the raw material powder before pulverization as shown in Example 1 will necessarily yield a Dmax of less than 200 µm as particle size distributions follow a normal distribution curve. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the raw material to have a Dmax of 200 µm or less because a Dmax value that is greater than 200 µm would result in distorted particle sizes within the slurry during the pulverization process which would result in cost increases for manufacturing a sulfide solid electrolyte as well as a less productive battery (para. [0006]) and use of known techniques to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious. See MPEP 2141. III. (C).
Regarding claim 9, Nakayama discloses wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte powder comprises Li, P, and S (Table 1 displays a composition of Example wherein said composition is comprised of Li5.4PS4.4Cl0.8Br0.8.).
Regarding claim 10, Nakayama discloses wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte powder has a crystal structure of an argyrodite type (Table 1 displays Example 1 as a sulfide solid electrolyte powder having a chemical composition of Li5.4PS4.4Cl0.8Br0.8, wherein said chemical composition has an argyrodite type crystal structure.).
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama et al. in further view of Katori et al. (JP 2021118038 A).
Regarding claim 6, Nakayama discloses the method according to claim 1.
Nakayama fails to disclose wherein the pulverization ball is an alumina ball.
However, Katori teaches wherein the pulverization ball is an alumina ball (Para. [0033] states that the material used for balls in a ball mill includes alumina.).
Nakayama and Katori are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of developing methods for manufacturing sulfide solid electrolyte powder with narrow particle size distributions and increased ionic conductivity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nakayama to include a pulverization ball wherein the pulverization ball is an alumina ball because Katori teaches that a ball mill made of alumina can produce a sulfide solid electrolyte while suppressing the decrease in ionic conductivity and producing particles with a D50 value of 5 µm or less (para. [0022]) and use of known techniques to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious. See MPEP 2141. III. (C). Furthermore, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP 2143(B).
Regarding claim 8, Nakayama discloses the method according to claim 1.
Nakayama fails to disclose wherein the pulverization ball has a diameter of 1 mm to 4 mm.
However, Katori teaches wherein the pulverization ball has a diameter of 1 mm to 4 mm (Para. [0033] teaches that the diameter of the ball mill is preferably 1 mm to 5 mm.).
Nakayama and Katori are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of developing methods for manufacturing sulfide solid electrolyte powder with narrow particle size distributions and increased ionic conductivity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nakayama to include a pulverization ball wherein the pulverization ball has a diameter of 1 mm to 4 mm because Katori teaches that a ball mill possessing a diameter of 1 mm to 5 mm can produce a sulfide solid electrolyte while suppressing the decrease in ionic conductivity and producing particles with a D50 value of 5 µm or less (para. [0022]) and use of known techniques to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious. See MPEP 2141. III. (C). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP 2143(B). Furthermore, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Noh et al. (Noh, Sungwoo et al., Ceramics International, 43 (2017) 15952-15958) discloses a method of manufacturing a sulfide solid electrolyte powder, wherein the method comprises preparing a slurry and pulverizing the sulfide solid electrolyte material in the slurry using a pulverization ball to obtain a sulfide solid electrolyte powder having a particle diameter D99 of 15 µm or less. Noh et al. displays the resulting particle sizes of the sulfide solid electrolyte powder as particle size distributions following a normal distribution curve. Shin et al. (US 2021/0194044 A1) discloses a method of manufacturing a sulfide solid electrolyte powder comprised of the elements Li, P, and S. The method comprises a step wherein the pre-pulverized powder is placed within a slurry with a liquid medium and a ball mill which was used for pulverizing said powder. Sugiura et al. (US 2014/0093785 A1) discloses a method of manufacturing a sulfide solid electrolyte material wherein the sulfide material comprises of Li, P, and S. The method comprises a step wherein the pre-pulverized powder is placed within a slurry with a liquid medium and a ball mill, with a diameter of 1 mm, which was used for pulverizing said powder wherein the product of the pulverization process has an average diameter between 0.4 µm and 0.9 µm. Sugiura also taught that an exemplary compound underwent a pulverization process for a duration of 1 hour.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTINO M SERVAGNO whose telephone number is (571)270-0847. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:00 am - 5:00 pm, F 8:00 am - 4:00 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, Joshua Allen can be reached at (571) 270-3176. 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.
/SANTINO MICHALE SERVAGNO/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/JOSHUA L ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights