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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 10 September 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that there is no evidence of record to show that the claimed process can be used to make a different product and that a search of all claims would not impose a serious burden.
This is not found persuasive because the instant specification discloses that the BET specific surface area depends on the details of pulverization ([0071]) and thus provides evidence that the process of Group II, claims 8-9, as claimed, could be performed to achieve a product having a BET – specific surface area relationship outside of the range recited by claim 1. Furthermore, the examiner maintains that examination of the entire claim set as originally presented (i.e., claims 1-9) would present a serious search burden as the inventions of Groups I and II require different fields of search. Specifically, Group I is drawn to a product classified in H01M 10/0562 and H01M 2300/0068 while Group II is drawn to a method classified in H01M 4/043.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10 September 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 3, lines 29-30, “a relationship of (BET specific surface area x 1H-NMR intensity)” should read --the relationship of (BET specific surface area x 1H-NMR intensity)--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 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.
Claim 1 recites “a 1H-NMR intensity is 0.3 or more” on line 8 but fails to clarify which peak the claimed 1H-NMR intensity corresponds to or in what ppm range the peak is expected. Claim 1 also recites “the 1H-NMR intensity is 1.0” on line 20-21 and a normalization procedure which includes “a highest intensity” on line 13, “an intensity of a peak observed in a range of 1.0 ± 0.2 ppm” on line 20, and “an intensity of a peak derived from adamantane” on lines 18-19. It is unclear whether the applicant means for the 1H-NMR intensity recited on lines 20-21 to be the same as or different from that recited on line 8 since the former is 1.0 and the latter is 0.3 or more, and it is further unclear which intensity, i.e. “a highest intensity”, “an intensity of a peak observed in a range of 1.0 ± 0.2 ppm”, and “an intensity of a peak derived from adamantane”, the 1H-NMR intensities of lines 8 and 20-21 are meant to refer to together or separately. For the purposes of prosecution, the examiner interprets the 1H-NMR intensity recited on line 8 to be the same 1H-NMR intensity as recited on lines 20-21 and to refer to the intensity of a peak observed in a range of 1.0 ± 0.2 ppm.
Claim 1 further recites a 1H-NMR spectrum on line 13 and on line 15. It is unclear whether these are meant to be the same or different as they are referred to identically but the first in the context of an external standard normalization experiment and the latter in the context of an internal standard normalization experiment. For the purposes of prosecution, the examiner interprets the 1H-NMR spectrum recited on line 13 to be a different 1H-NMR spectrum from that recited on line 15.
Claim 1 further recites “an intensity of a peak derived from adamantane that is the internal standard and observed at 1.91 ppm is set to 1.7” and “assuming that the 1H-NMR intensity is 1.0”. Thus, it is unclear whether the applicant means for the 1H-NMR spectrum to be scaled to the intensity of a peak derived from adamantane which is to be set to a peak intensity value of 1.7 or for the 1H-NMR spectrum to be scaled to the 1H-NMR intensity which is set to 1.0 and corresponds to the intensity of a peak observed in a range of 1.0 ± 0.2 ppm as discussed above. For the purposes of prosecution, the examiner interprets the internal standard 1H-NMR spectrum peak intensities to be scaled to the peak derived from adamantane which is to be set to a peak intensity value of 1.7 and the 1H-NMR intensity to be the peak intensity of the peak observed in a range of 1.0 ± 0.2 ppm measured after the peak derived from adamantane is set to 1.7. Claims 2-7 are rendered unclear by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 5 recites a crystal structure of the crystal phase or the amorphous phase. It is unclear how the amorphous phase could have a crystal structure as a material having a crystal structure is necessarily a crystalline solid and thus of a crystal phase. For the purposes of prosecution, the examiner interprets claim 5 to require a molecular structure of the crystal phase or the amorphous phase comprises a PS43- tetrahedral structure.
Claim 7 recites “the crystal phase” corresponding to the crystal phase first recited in claim 1; however, claim 1 only optionally recites “a crystal phase”. Thus, it is unclear whether the applicant means for claim 7 to require the sulfide solid electrolyte of claim 1 comprising a crystal phase or is merely placing further limitations on the crystal phase recited by claim 1 which may only optionally be included in the sulfide solid electrolyte. For the purposes of prosecution, the examiner interprets claim 7 to require the sulfide solid electrolyte according to claim 1, comprising a crystal phase comprising Li, P, and S, wherein a crystal structure of the crystal phase comprises an argyrodite structure.
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.
Claims 1-3, and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino (US 2020/0212482).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, as interpreted in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Makino teaches a solid electrolyte composition comprising a sulfide-based solid electrolyte (corresponding to the claimed sulfide solid electrolyte powder) for a secondary battery (satisfying the intended use language to be used for a lithium-ion secondary battery) (Makino, [0002], [0013]), and an Li-P-S-based glass (corresponding to the claimed amorphous phase comprising Li, P, and S as one skilled in the art would recognize glass is an amorphous solid) (Makino, [0066]).
Makino is silent to a 1H-NMR intensity and a BET specific surface area x 1H-NMR relationship.
However, the instant specification discloses that the pulverization controls the BET specific surface area (instant specification, [0071]) and that the moisture content of the solvent during pulverization controls the peak intensity of the 1H-NMR peak in a range of 1.0 ± 0.2 (instant specification, [0065]), which corresponds to the claimed 1H-NMR intensity as discussed in section 6 above . The instant specification also provides an example sulfide solid electrolyte powder (Example 7) having a 1H-NMR intensity of 1.3 and a BET specific surface area x 1H-NMR relationship of 9.4 (instant specification, [0122], Table 2). Makino teaches a mixing method substantially the same as the pulverization method of the instant specification’s Example 7.
Instant specification [0096], [0101]
Makino
wet pulverization in a planetary ball mill
The mixer may be a ball mill [0197]
heptane having a moisture centration of 20 ppm and dibutyl ether
the dispersion medium may be heptane with a moisture content of 50 ppm or less ([0117], [0127])
2 g of sulfide solid electrolyte, 8 g of heptane, 1:4 ratio
Makino does not generally teach a solvent to electrolyte ratio but provides 24 examples all using 1.5 g of sulfide-based solid electrolyte and 5.3 g of solvent, 1:~3.53 ratio calculated by the examiner ([0322])
200 rpm, 45 min
150 to 700 ppm, 1 to 24 hours ([0197], [0201]-[0202])
Thus, a 1H-NMR intensity range and BET specific surface area x 1H-NMR intensity relationship range overlapping with the 1.3 and 9.4 values, respectively, (as taught by the instant specification for Example 7) and thus also overlapping with the claimed ranges, would naturally flow from the teachings of Makino. See MPEP §2112(IV). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Makino teaches a volume-average particle diameter (which one skilled in the art would recognize corresponds to the claimed D50) range of 0.1 to 50 µm (Makino, [0070]) which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Makino teaches a general structure of the sulfide-based solid electrolyte, La1 Mb1 Pc1 Sd1 Ae1, wherein L may be Li, a1 is 1 to 9, b1 is 0 to 3 and thus may be 0, d1 is 2.5 to 10, and e1 is 0 to 5 and thus may be 0 (Makino, [0063]-[0064]). Therefore, Makino’s general structure may be Li3PS4 (corresponding to the claimed PS43- tetrahedral structure). Makino further teaches the sulfide-based solid electrolyte may be non-crystalline (corresponding to the claimed amorphous phase) or crystallized (corresponding to the claimed crystal phase) (Makino, [0066]).
Regarding claim 6, Makino teaches a general structure of the sulfide-based solid electrolyte as discussed regarding claim 5. Makino further teaches A (corresponding to the claimed Ha) represents an element selected from I, Br, Cl, and F, that e1 is 0 to 5 (Makino, [0063]-[0064]), and the sulfide-based solid electrolyte may be non-crystalline (corresponding to the claimed amorphous phase) or crystallized (corresponding to the claimed crystal phase) (Makino, [0066]).
Regarding claim 7, Makino teaches a general structure of the sulfide-based solid electrolyte as discussed regarding claims 5 and 6 and that the sulfide-based solid electrolyte may be crystallized (corresponding to the claimed crystal phase and crystal structure) (Makino, [0066]). According to Makino’s general structure, a1 may be 6, d1 may be 5 and, A may be Cl, and e1 may be 1 (Makino, [0063]-[0064]), thus Makino’s sulfide-based solid electrolyte may be Li6PS5Cl (corresponding to the claimed argyrodite structure as one skilled in the art would recognize Li6PS5Cl as an argyrodite structure common in the battery arts).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sato et al. (US 2017/0155170), hereinafter “Sato”.
Regarding claim 4, Makino is silent to the claimed phosphorous content gradient ranges.
However, the instant specification teaches that the claimed P (5 nm), P (50 nm), and P (100 nm) content is controlled by the moisture content during pulverization and the moisture content during heating after pulverization (instant specification, [0067], [0073]). As discussed regarding claim 1 above, Makino teaches a mixing process substantially similar to the instant specification. Makino further teaches heating the obtained sulfide-based electrolyte to form sheets but is silent to the moisture content during heating (Makino, [0424]).
However, Sato teaches a sulfide solid electrolyte and thermal treatment thereof, wherein the thermal treatment is performed at 150 °C or higher (Sato, [0089]), for 1 minute to 24 hours and with a dew point of -60 °C or lower (Sato, [0090]), and as a result of thermal treatment of the sulfide glass, a sulfide glass ceramic having a reduced solvent content can be obtained (Sato, [0088]). Sato further teaches the heating preferably includes a first and second heating in order to reduce the solvent content more (Sato, [0093]). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add Sato’s thermal treatment in two stages to Makino’s sulfide-based electrolyte in order to provide Makino’s sulfide-based electrolyte with a reduced solvent content (Sato, [0088], [0093]).
The sulfide-based solid electrolyte suggested by Makino modified by Sato is substantially the same as the instantly claimed sulfide solid electrolyte powder and made by a substantially similar process of mixing (as discussed regarding claim 1 above) and heating (see below).
Instant specification [0101]
Sato
dew point -60 °C
dew point -60 °C or lower [0090]
180 °C, 2 h
150 °C or higher, 1 minute to 24 h [0090]
220 °C, 0.5 h
two stages of heating [0093]
Thus, {P (5 nm)/P (100nm)} and {P (5 nm)/P (50 nm)} ranges overlapping with the claimed ranges would have flowed naturally from the teachings of Makino and Sato. See MPEP §2112(IV). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by 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. Suzuki (US 2016/0260963) and Yamada (US 2020/0358132) teach an Li, P, S sulfide solid electrolyte with a PS43- structure, including halides and a substantially similar pulverization in organic solvent with moisture content. Chung et al. (US 2023/0084565) teaches most of the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMRAN S SAUND whose telephone number is (571)270-0845. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1177. 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.
/SIMRAN S. SAUND/Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
