DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Amendments, filed on September 26, 2024, have been entered in the above-identified application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Analysis
The present application contains two active independent claim(s) (claims 1 and 12) and thirteen active dependent claims (claims 2 – 11 and 13 - 15). No claims are currently withdrawn.
Examiner’s Comments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element 1” should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 – 4 are 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.
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 of this title, 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Regarding numbers (1), (2) and (4), see the rejection(s) provided below. Regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, the general level of skill is taken as a highly skilled technician having at least a BS, MS, or PhD in the relevant field and 3-5 years experience.
Claims 1 and 5 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Burdynska et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,572,459 B2) in view of Shibata et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,658,337 B2), the above evidenced by Khabashesku et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2006/0166003 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Burdynska et al. disclose a modified sulfide solid electrolyte (Title; Abstract; column 1; col. 5, lines 45 – 47; and examples, Tables 4 and 5) comprising: a sulfide solid electrolyte (ibid) having a BET specific surface area (inherent in that solid particles will have some value of surface area, though the magnitude is not reported) and containing a lithium atom, a sulfur atom, a phosphorus atom, and a halogen atom (see citations above); and a polymer compound having two or more functional groups, 0.1 – 5.0 wt% of the polymer, wherein the functional groups can comprise heterocyclic rings having a carbon and oxygen atom (Title; Abstract and columns 1 – 4; functionalized polymers listed, etc.
PNG
media_image1.png
186
334
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
228
302
media_image2.png
Greyscale
).
Burdynska et al. fail to disclose the BET specific surface area of 10 m²/g or more.
However, Shibata et al. teaches an equivalent sulfide solid electrolyte wherein the BET surface area is taught to be 20 m2/g or more for improved lithium ion transfer/performance of the solid electrolyte (at least claim 1; columns 29 – 40; and examples).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of Burdynska et al. to use a sulfide solid electrolyte compound meeting the claimed limitations as taught by Burdynska et al. and Shibata et al. above, as such a solid electrolyte composition provides excellent ionic conductivity in thin, dense films.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Burdynska et al. fails to disclose wherein the modified sulfide solid electrolyte has a peak at 2800 to 3000 cm⁻¹ in an infrared absorption spectrum obtained by FT-IR spectroscopy (ATR method)
Regarding the FT-IR peak at 2800 – 3000 cm-1, the Examiner notes that there is sound basis that this is an intrinsic range for C-H stretching in epoxies, which are known in the art as evidenced by Khabashesku et al. (Figures 6, 7, 11 and relevant disclosures thereto, and at least Paragraph 0085). While the Examiner acknowledges that the non-epoxy embodiments disclosed in Burdynska et al. would not necessarily possess this FT-IR peak, Burdynska et al. clearly disclose embodiments possessing epoxy compounds as cited above.
Substitution of functional equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the functional equivalency. In the instant case, epoxy compounds meeting the claimed FT-IR limitations and non-epoxy compounds are functional equivalents in the field of suitable functionalized polymer components in a solid electrolyte compound, as taught by Burdynska et al. above. In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Regarding claim 7, there is sound basis that, like the FT-IR peak in the claimed range, the relied upon epoxy teachings would intrinsically possess the claimed 1H-NMR spectrum peak.
Regarding claim 8, Burdynska et al. disclose encompassing content of the compund (col. 28, lines 39 -67). Furthermore, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the amount of the compound through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in Burdynska et al. above. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 9 - 11, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the molecular weight of the compound through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in Burdynska et al. regarding various ranges of molecular weights (e.g. at least col. 12, lines 8 – 14). In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Claims 10 and 11 basically refer to a monomodal molecular weight, which is taught by Burdynska et al. above.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Burdynska et al. disclose slurry coating the components in an organic solvent, then drying per the claimed limitations (at least Table 1; col. 14, lines 16 – 22; col. 21, lines 49 – 50; and col. 29, line 25 bridging col. 30, line 67). The additional limitations are met for the reasons set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Burdynska et al. disclose lithium ion batteries meeting the claimed limitations (at least col. 29, line 25 bridging col. 30, line 67).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims 2 – 4 require multiple oxirane rings (
PNG
media_image3.png
122
106
media_image3.png
Greyscale
), which is neither taught nor rendered obvious by the prior art of record. The polymer functional groups taught by Burdynska et al. disclose rings with C and O atoms, but fail to teach or render obvious the three membered ring that is an oxirane ring.
In addition, with regard to related application 18/272,166 (U.S. Patent App. No. 2024/0105985 A1), while both claim LiSP-halogen solid electrolytes with a compound that is has identical BET, FT-IR, and 1H-NMR peak range values, App. ‘166 only claims compounds having a single epoxy-type bond (i.e. fails to claim at least two heterocyclic rings having both C and O in their compounds). The Examiner notes that the dependent claims of App. ‘166 only ever disclose a single oxirane ring compound, never teaching or rendering obvious multiple oxirane rings (much less, multiple heterocyclic rings meeting the limitations of claims 1 and 12) in the compound.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M BERNATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1505. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (variable: ~0600 - 1500 ET).
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
/KEVIN M BERNATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
January 30, 2026