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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (U.S. Patent Publication 2015/0017548) in view of Fujii (WO Publication 2023/053657, U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0266599 will be used as an English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Kato discloses a method for producing a sulfide solid electrolyte material comprising: amorphizing a raw material composition and heating the amorphized ion conductive material in an inert gas atmosphere (Paragraph 0096, 0112). As to claim 2, Kato teaches that the raw material is formed by mixing phosphorus, tin, lithium and sulfur-containing starting materials (Paragraph 0118). Kato also teaches that the formed composition after heating is Li3.275Sn0.275P0.725S4 (Paragraph 0119). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the formed raw material prior to amorphization and heating would have this composition as well. Regarding claim 3, Kato states that the average particle diameter of the sulfide solid electrolyte material is 0.1 to 50 µm (Paragraph 0066). As to claim 4, Kato teaches that the sulfide solid electrolyte has a peak at 2θ=26.96° (Paragraph 0053).
Kato fails to disclose that the heated ion conductive material is then pulverized into a fine particle form and heated to a temperature of 300 to 450 °C in an inert gas stream, and that the sulfide solid electrolyte has a full width half maximum of a peak at a 2θ of 26.70 ± 0.50° of 0.73 or less in an X-ray diffractometry.
Regarding claim 1, Fujii discloses a method of producing a sulfide solid electrolyte powder comprising: amorphizing a raw material mixture, heating the amorphized material; pulverizing the formed sulfide solid electrolyte to form a solid electrolyte powder with a particle diameter of 3 µm or less, and heating and drying the obtained powder at a temperature of 100 to 300°C, wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte comprises Li, P and S (Paragraphs 0044, 0114, 0130, 0141, 0144, 0151).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the process of Kato could also comprise a pulverizing and heating step after the first heating step because Fujii teaches that this forms a solid electrolyte powder with a desired particle diameter for improved battery properties. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the FWHM of the sulfide solid electrolyte of Kato at about 26.7° could be 0.73 or less because the formula of the solid electrolyte of Kato is the same as that of the present invention and the method of making it combined with the pulverizing and heating steps of Fujii are the same as that of the present invention. Thus, the resulting product would have the same properties as that of the present invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY L RAYMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-6545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am-6 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
BRITTANY L. RAYMOND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1722
/BRITTANY L RAYMOND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights