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 § 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 4-5 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 4 depends from claim 1 but lacks clarity as to how the solid electrolyte particle of claim 1 bears any structural relationship to the particle recited in claim 4. Claim 1 requires a solid electrolyte particle and limits the material thereof to what may encompass LGPS due to the presence of Li, Ge, P, and S and the characteristics claimed that are disclosed in the specification as relating to an LGPS-type crystal phase. Claim 4 requires that the particle of claim 1 have a core portion, a shell portion, wherein the shell covers a periphery of the core portion, the core portion includes an LGPS-type crystal phase, and the shell portion includes an amorphous phase. Claim 4 does not specify that the core portion is the particle or composition of claim 1 or any relationship between the particle of claim 1 and the core portion and shell portion of claim 4. It is not clear if the composition of claim 1 is part of the core or the shell or if it is an additional structure. Additionally, it is not clear if the particle of claim 1 is an intermediary where the solid electrolyte particle of claim 4 is made using the solid electrolyte particle of claim 1. From the instant specification, it appears that the core of claim 4 is made of LGPS crystal phase and that claim 1 is an LGPS crystal phase. For instance, Figure 1 is an XRD spectra that has the peak height relationships recited in claim 1 and is described as crystal having crystal phase and also having amorphous phase due to the wet-milling treatment. In other words, the peak height relationship cited in claim 1 is described in the instant specification has the final formed particle with a core and shell and the wet-milling lowers the crystal phase (forming an amorphous shell) and results in the peak height ratios claims (see pages 12-13 of the instant specification). However, the claims lack clarity in this regard as there is no recitation of a crystal phase in claim 1 and the LGPS of claim 4 does not refer to the LGPS (Li, Ge, P, S) of claim 1. Claim 5 is included as it depends from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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 and 2 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 EP 3828980 (Fukushima).
Fukushima discloses a sulfide solid electrolyte Examples of the LGPS-type sulfide solid electrolyte include materials with an Li10GeP2S12 crystal structure (Table 2). This crystal structure is identical to the bulk composition recited in instant Table 2 and each material includes Li, Ge, P and S. The crystalline structure with the crystal phase of Li10GeP2S12 has diffraction peaks at the positions of 2θ = 14.4° ± 0.5°, 20.1° ± 0.5°, 20.4° ± 0.5°, 26.9° ± 0.5°, 29.5° ± 0.5°, and 47.3° ± 0.5° in the X-ray diffraction measurement with the CuKa line used [0040]. As seen in Figure 8, a peak is also present at 41.4 +/- 0.5 and the pattern is identical to that of instant figure 1. The heights for each peak are also identical, thus the claimed ratios of the peak heights are met. The peaks are sharp with good width, indicating good crystallinity and indicating at 29.5 diffraction angle a full width at half maximum of less than 0.15 degrees. Alternatively, the composition of Fukushima uses the same materials of Li2S, P2S5 and GeS2, combines the materials by mixing, milling the materials by ball mill or vibration mill treatment, and heats the material under an inert atmosphere which is similar to the process applied in instant Example 1 [0102-0104]. Based upon the use of the same materials and processing in a similar manner and the similarity of the X-ray pattern, the solid electrolyte material of Fukushima meets the claimed particles and any slight differences are considered to not rise to the level of patentable distinction and are considered obvious. See MPEP 2112 (V) which states in part, “[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977) (footnote and citation omitted). The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (citing Best, 562 F.2d at 1255).”
Claim(s) 1 and 2 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 CN 105098228 (Xu) (cited on IDS filed 08/07/2025).
Xu discloses solid electrolyte material, considered particles or comprising a particle as the material forms crystals, comprising Li, Ge, P, and S (Embodiment 1) and the X-ray diffraction pattern is shown in Figure 2. Peaks are seen at 29.46 indicative of good crystallinity. Peaks are also seen at approximately 41.4 +/- 0.5 and 47.3 +/-0.5. When compared to instant Figure 1, Example 1, the pattern is identical. The peaks are sharp with good width, indicating good crystallinity (discussion of Embodiment 1) and indicating at 29.46 diffraction angle a full width at half maximum of less than 0.15 degrees. The peak height relative to the other peaks is also identical such that the ratios of peaks IB (41.4) and IC (47.3) relative peak IA (29.46) are within the claimed values. Alternatively, the composition of Xu uses the same materials of Li2S, P2S5 and GeS2, combines the materials by mixing, kneads the materials uniformly, and heats the material which is similar to the process applied in instant Example 1. Based upon the use of the same materials and processing in a similar manner and the similarity of the X-ray pattern, the solid electrolyte material of Xu meets the claimed particles and any slight differences are considered to not rise to the level of patentable distinction and are considered obvious. See MPEP 2112 (V) which states in part, “[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977) (footnote and citation omitted). The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (citing Best, 562 F.2d at 1255).”
Claim(s) 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 105098228 (Xu) (cited on IDS filed 08/07/2025) in view of WO 2021/254220 (Cheng).
Xu discloses and LGPS sulfide solid electrolyte with crystallinity as discussed above but does not disclose further forming a shell onto the core material. Xu does disclose that the sulfide solid electrolyte material has a ion conductivity of 10-2 S/cm which is within the range of claim 4 as it is higher than 10-3 S/cm. Cheng discloses forming a coating layer comprising conductivity of 10-12S/cm which has high insulation and can block transmission of electron (pages 3-4) onto a sulfide solid electrolyte thereby by preventing electrons from being transmitted into the main body of the electrolyte and improve battery safety (abstract). The sulfide solid electrolyte may be Li10GeP2S12 (LGPS) (Example 4). Cheng discloses forming the coating onto solid electrolyte particles by immersion in a coating solution followed by drying to ensure complete coating by the coating layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the coating disclosed by Cheng on the particles of Xu to form an insulative coating on the electrolyte thus preventing electrons from being transmitted into the solid electrolyte main body and improve the safety of the battery.
Regarding claim 5, the thickness of the coating (shell) is less than 20 nm (claim 1 of Cheng).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 3 requires a Raman spectrum having a shoulder peak at a Raman shift of 388 +/- 3 cm-1. The closest prior art of Xu discloses a peak at 382 but does not disclose a Stokes shift and further discloses that this peak is attributed to displacement is not bridging sulfur-containing (GeS0.5S3) 3-group of the spectrum peak. Applicant compares LGPS materials similar to that disclosed by Xu that have been further subjected to wet-milling and observe the claimed shoulder peak at high resolution only with wet milling at 200 rpm whereas materials with no wet milling or wet-milling at other rpm show no shoulder peak (Table 1 of Figure 6 and Figure 2). As such, there is no clear evidence that the claimed shoulder peak and that of Xu are the same peak or derived from a same attribute of the material. No motivation is found in the record to provide a similar treatment to the material of Xu or otherwise provide such a peak at this precise Raman location. The other closest prior art of record to Fukushima also does not disclose or obviate the claimed peaks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER C MCNEIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 5712723066. 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.
JENNIFER C. MCNEIL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/Jennifer McNeil/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights