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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold “Electrochemical and morphological properties of chloride-doped lithium argyrodite solid electrolytes.”, in view of Muldoon et al. US 20200030768.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 8 and 9, the Arnold reference teaches forming Li6PS5Cl solid electrolyte by combining , Li3PS4, Li2S and LiCl in ethanol. The solvent is dried out and then the product is annealed at 200°C (See Pg. 26 of 62, Section 2.2). Ethanol is an organic solvent. The components Li2S, Li3PS4 and LiCl read on the claimed raw material inclusion containing the required atoms. The instant Specification defines that the raw material inclusion is not particularly limited as long as it contains these atoms, and examples thereof include a compound containing at least one kind of atom selected from these atoms alone as a raw material or an inclusion containing a plurality of kinds of the compound (instant Spec Para [0046]).
The difference between the invention of Arnold and that of claim 1 is that claim 1 requires microwave irradiation of the raw materials to form the solid sulfide electrolyte.
The Muldoon et al. reference teaches microwave induced formation of sulfide solid electrolytes (Abstract). The reference teaches that the microwave irradiation induced of Li2S and P2S5 reactants for formation of Li3PS4 and Li7P3S11 electrolytes results in a lower reaction temperate in organic solvents (Para [0035]). Acetonitrile, used by Muldoon Para[0064], is an organic solvent.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary level of skill in the art to form the Li6PS5Cl electrolyte of Arnold by the microwave method of Muldoon et al. One would be motivated to do so in an effort to reduce the required reaction temperature, as taught by Muldoon Para [0035].
Regarding claim 2, the modified Arnold reference does not teach the integrated energy of 1.0 kW.s/g or the microwave output of 140W/g.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine a suitable or optimal level of energy or microwave output to use. The energy and the microwave output would directly control how long it takes to achieve a desired temperature. Thuse these variables (kW.s/g and W/g) are result effective variables and can be optimized without undue experimentation.
Regarding claim 3, the Muldoon reference teaches microwave irradiation induced sulfide electrode formation in acetonitrile (Para [0064). The reference does not specify the dielectric loss of this solvent. However, acetonitrile has a dielectric loss of less than 10.0 at a temperature of 25°C. See evidentiary reference indicating this property (Stoppa et al. “Dielectric response and collective dynamics of acetonitrile” Pg. #964, Fig. 2b).
Regarding claim 4, the Muldoon reference teaches heating to a temperature of 200°C to remove the ACN solvent (Para [0077]). This indicates that the boiling point is higher than 50°C.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Arnold reference does not teach the mass ratio of the mixture.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary level of skill in the art to determine a suitable or optimal amount of raw material reactants and solvent to use in the process of Maniwa. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical (MPEP §2144.05 II). The amount of raw material would directly control the rate of reaction. Thus, this is a result effective variable which can be optimized without undue experimentation.
Regarding claim 7, The Muldoon reference teaches an example where the microwave irradiation is performed at a temperature of 290°C (Para [0064]).
Regarding claim 10, the Arnold reference teaches the use of Li3PS4 as the raw material for Li6PS5Cl formation (Pg. 26 of 62, section 2.2). Li3PS4 is considered to read on the claimed raw material sulfide solid electrolyte.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, The Arnold reference does not teach pulverizing as a method of making the Li3PS4.
However, the Muldoon reference teaches that it is known in the art to combing Li2S and P2S5 powders by ball milling to form amorphous Li3PS4 (Para [0007]). The amorphous phase is annealed at 150°C (Para [0069]) to form crystallized b-Li3PS4.The Li2S and P2S5 are considered as the at least two kinds of compounds in a solvent and the annealing is considered analogous to calcining.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-6, 8, 12 of copending Application No. 19/118416 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications require heating a mixture with microwave irradiation to produce the sulfide solid electrolyte. However, the instant claims require a raw material that has inclusions of the desired atoms and the other application broadly requires a substance.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Relevant Art
Subramanian et al. “High ionic-conducting Li-argyrodites…” teaches forming a solid electrolyte comprising Li-P-S-Cl argyrodite (Abstract). The reference teaches combing Li2S, LiCl and P2S in a solvent and then heat treating to remove the solvent and then calcining to yield Li6P5SCl (See Fig. 1 and Pg. 2, right hand column, last para).
Maniwa et al. “Synthesis of sulfide solid electrolytes from Li2S and P2S5 in anisole” teaches synthesis of solid sulfide electrolytes from Li2S and P2S5 using anisole at 200-300°C under microwave irradiation (Abstract). The reference synthesizes argyrodite Li6PS5Cl by first forming Li3PS4 and the adding LiCl (See section 2.1.3 on Pg. #401). The reference first combines a mixture of Li2S and P2S5 in anisole and heats this mixture by microwave irradiation to form the Li3PS4. This is then dried at 150°C for 3h to remove any solvent (See Pg. #401, right hand column, first para). The product formed from the LiCl addition (Li6PS5Cl) was also dried at 180°C for 3h (See Fig. 1).
[AltContent: textbox ([img-media_image1.png])]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED TAHA IQBAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5857. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7-5.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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.
/SYED T IQBAL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights