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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 10, 2025 has been entered.
Summary
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted October 10, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1, 5-8, and 15 are amended, and claims 19-20 are withdrawn from consideration, claims 3 and 4 are canceled, and claims 21 and 22 are new, resulting in claims 1-2, 5-18, and 21-22 pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Independent claim 1 requires 0.1 < x ≤ 0.4 (x greater than 0.1). However, claims 5-7 recite 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 0.4 (x greater than or equal to 0.1) and claim 8 claims a compound wherein x is 0.1. Therefore, claims 5-8 broaden the range of x.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-11, 13, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adermann (WO 2020038960 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 5-8, Adermann teaches solid material compositions that can be used as solid electrolytes for an electrochemical cell (Abstract) having an argyrodite crystal structure (pg. 20 Section title Crystal structure and morphology) “represented by general formula (I) shown below, wherein X and Y are different and selected from Cl, Br, and I.
Adermann teaches that, preferably, the solid electrolyte consists of Li, P, S, O and one or both of Cl and Br according to general formula (I). Adermann also teaches embodiments in which both Cl and Br are included within the solid electrolyte structure (Table 1, rows 3 and 4; claim 3).
Instant application Formula 1: (Li1-k Mk )7-(a+b) PS6-(a+b+x) Ox Cla Brb
Adermann general formula (I): Lia PSbOc Xd Ye
Regarding Adermann general formula (I), Adermann teaches a in the range of 4.5 to 7.5, b in the range of 3.0 to 5.4, c in the range of 0.1 to 2, b + c in the range of 4.4 to 6, d in the range of 0 to 1.6, e is in the range of 0 to 1.6, d + e is in the range of from 0.4 to 1.8, b + c + d + e is in the range of from 4.8 to 7.6, and a = 3 + 2(b + c - 4) + d + e (Adermann claim 1 and claim 3 (X is Cl and Y is Br)).
Adermann further teaches that a/b is 0.25 to 4 (d/e, Adermann claim 3). Adermann does not expressly teach an embodiment wherein 1 ≤ a/b ≤ 1.5 while 0.7≤ b <2. However, the a/b range of Adermann substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 1. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Adermann, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Adermann teaches that these ranges result in maximum lithium ion conductivity (Adermann pg. 8 lines 8-9). The examiner notes that when k =0, M is not present in the structure represented by Formula 1 of instant claim 1.
Adermann does not explicitly teach an embodiment wherein the solid electrolyte comprises a compound represented by formulas of instant claims 1 and 5-7 or a compound listed in instant claim 8.
The stochiometric ranges of Adermann, as described above, substantially overlap the claimed ranges in the instant claims 1 and 5-7. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges taught by Adermann, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 8, the stoichiometric amounts of compound Li5.3PS4.2O0.1ClBr0.7 claimed in instant claim 8 fall within the ranges taught by Adermann, as shown below, except b + c = 4.3 instead of being 4.4 to 6, as taught by Adermann. However, this value of b + c calculated using the compound of instant claim 8 is exceptionally close to the range taught by Adermann.
Adermann further teaches that the ratio of the sulfur and oxygen stochiometric amounts (b/c) can impact the performance of the solid electrolyte. Adhermann teaches that having a ratio above the preferred range is difficult due to the synthetic process being utilized and having a ratio below the preferred range can “have negative effects on the lithium ion conductivity, chemical and mechanical stability and/or processability” (Adermann pg. 8 lines 10-18).
Element (letter corresponding to stoichiometric amount in Adermann general formula (I))
Instant claim 8
Ranges taught by Adermann
Li (a)
5.3
4.5 to 7.5
P
1
1
S (b)
4.2
3.0 to 5.4
O (c)
0.1
0.1 to 2
Cl (d)
1
0 to 1.6
Br (e)
0.7
0 to 1.6
Adermann claims 1 and 3
Range
Calculated using Li5.3PS4.2O0.1ClBr0.7 of instant claim 8
b + c
4.4 to 6
4.2 + 0.1 = 4.3
d + e
0.4 to 1.8 (claim 1)
0.9 to 1.7 (claim 3)
1 + 0.7 = 1.7
b + c + d + e
4.8 to 7.6
4.3 + 1.7 = 6
d/e
0.25 to 4
1/0.7 = 1.43
a = 3 + 2(b + c - 4) + d + e
5.3 = 3 + 2(4.3 – 4) + 1.7
Regarding claim 2, Adermann teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Adermann further teaches an example wherein | 2-(a+b+x) | ≤ 1 (2-(0.72 + 0.55 + 0.72) = 0.01 ≤ 1; Table 1 row 3). Adermann further teaches ranges of values for a, b, and x, as described above, which substantially overlap the claimed ranges of instant claim 1. Adermann does not expressly teach an embodiment wherein | 2-(a+b+x) | ≤ 1 and 0.7 ≤ b < 2.
Since the stoichiometric value ranges of a, b, and x overlap the claimed ranges of instant claim 1, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the stoichiometric amounts, including amounts resulting in | 2-(a+b+x) | ≤ 1, in order to obtain a solid electrolyte with suitable performance for a desired battery application.
Regarding claim 9, Adermann teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Adermann further teaches a solid electrolyte comprising the elements of instant claim 1 (Li, P, S, O, Cl, and Br) having an ion conductivity of 1 mS/cm or more at about 25 °C (Table 1 row 3, 2.2 mS/cm; ion conductivity was measured at room temperature pg. 19 line 16, Section titled 3. Conductivity) being suitable. The examiner notes that the instant specification recites that room temperature corresponds to 25°C and that the ion conductivity measurements were obtained “at room temperature” (instant specification [40]).
Since Adermann teaches that an ion conductivity of greater than 1 mS/cm is suitable for a solid electrolyte comprising the elements of instant claim 1, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the stoichiometric amounts in the solid electrolyte of Adermann, as described above for instant claim 1, to obtain an ion conductivity of 1 mS/cm or greater in order to achieve a solid electrolyte with suitable performance for a desired battery application.
Regarding claim 10, Adermann teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Adermann teaches an electrochemical battery (electrochemical cell, pg. 16 line 4) comprising a cathode layer (cathode, pg. 16 line 7), an anode layer (anode, pg. 16 line 6) and a separator between the cathode layer and the anode layer, wherein at least one selected form the cathode layer, the anode layer, and the solid electrolyte layer includes the solid electrolyte of claim 1 (pg. 16 lines 9-11).
Adermann does not explicitly recite that the separator is a solid electrolyte layer. However, the solid electrolyte of Adermann is taught to be suitable for use in all-solid-state batteries (pg. 15 lines 23-24; pg. 16 lines 22-23), which requires the separator be a solid electrolyte layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the separator of Adermann be a solid electrolyte layer in order to fabricate an all-solid-state battery for a desired application.
Regarding claims 11 and 18, Adermann teaches all features of claims 1 and 10, as described above. Adermann teaches that “the cathode of an all-solid-state electrochemical cell usually comprises” a cathode active material and a solid electrolyte (pg. 15 lines 19-20). Adermann does not expressly teach an embodiment wherein the cathode layer includes the solid electrolyte.
Since, Adermann teaches that the solid electrolyte of their claimed invention is suitable for use in all-solid-state batteries, as described for instant claim 10, and that all-solid-state batteries typically comprise an active material and a solid electrolyte, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate an electrochemical battery wherein the cathode layer includes the solid electrolyte and a cathode active material and the electrochemical battery is an all-solid-state secondary battery in order to obtain a battery suitable for a desired electrochemical application.
Regarding claim 13, Adermann teaches all features of claims 1 and 10-11, as described above. Adermann teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach the capacity retention rate of the electrochemical battery. It is reasonable to presume that the capacity retention rate is inherent to the electrochemical battery of Adermann. Support for said presumption is found in Adermann and the instant application both disclosing a solid electrolyte for use in batteries comprising Li, P, S, O, Cl, and Br, as described for instant claim 1, and an electrochemical battery comprising a cathode including the solid electrolyte, an anode, and a solid electrolyte layer, as described for claims 10-11.
Therefore, the electrochemical battery of Adermann is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 21, Adermann teaches all features of claim 1. As described above, the stoichiometric amounts taught by Adermann substantially overlap the claimed ranges of instant claim 1. It is noted that the expression of claim 21, 6-(a+b+x) + x, is mathematically equivalent to 6-(a+b). As mentioned above, Adermann teaches a+b (Adermann d+e) being 0.9 to 1.7 when Cl and Br are both present (Adermann claim 3), thus resulting in 6-(a+b) being 4.3 to 5.1 (6-0.9 = 5.1 and 6-1.7 = 4.3).
The range of values for 6-(a+b) taught by Adermann substantially overlap the claimed ranges in the instant claim 21. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Adermann, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Adermann, as applied to instant claims 1 and 10-11 above, in view of Chen (Chen et al., Selection of Conductive Additives in Li-Ion Battery cathodes A Numerical Study. Journal of the Electrochemical Society. 154, 10, A978-A986 (2007)) and Chida (Chida et al., Liquid-phase synthesis of Li6PS5Br using ultrasonication and application to cathode composite electrodes in all-solid-state batteries. Ceramics International. 44, 742-746 (2018)).
Regarding claim 12, Adermann teaches all features of claims 1 and 10-11, as described above. As described for instant claim 11, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate an electrochemical battery comprising a cathode layer including the solid electrolyte of Adermann and a cathode active material in order to obtain a battery suitable for a desired application.
Adermann is silent regarding the addition of a conducting agent to the cathode layer and the content of the solid electrolyte in the cathode layer.
However, Chen teaches that the addition of conductive additives to cathode materials improves capacity, cyclability, and overall conductivity (Chen Abstract; pg. A978 left column first paragraph).
Since Chen teaches that adding conductive additives improves battery cathode performance, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a conducting agent to the cathode layer of Adermann in order to improve capacity, cyclability, and overall conductivity.
Chida teaches an all-solid-state battery comprising a cathode that includes a cathode active material (LiCo1/3Ni1/3Mn1/3O2) and a solid electrolyte (Li6PS5-Br), wherein the solid electrolyte is 2-70 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the cathode active material (Chida pg. 743, mass ratio of LiCo1/3Ni1/3Mn1/3O2: electrode components (Li, P, S, Br): VGCF = 84: 14: 2). Chida teaches that this ratio was used in order to “achieve high capacity” (Chida pg. 743, right column first paragraph).
Since Chida teaches that a solid electrolyte that is 2-70 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the cathode active material is suitable for use in battery cathodes, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a solid electrolyte composition that falls within the claimed range in order to obtain a battery with desirable performance and high capacity.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Adermann, as applied to instant claims 1 and 10-11 above, in view of Baek (US 20140170504 A1) and Inoue (US 20150325844 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Adermann teaches all features of claims 1 and 10, as described above. Adermann further teaches the anode layer including a first anode active material layer comprising an anode active material that includes a carbon-based anode active material (graphitic carbon, Adermann pg. 16 lines 14-15).
Adermann does not teach the anode layer including an anode current collector and an anode active material on the anode current collector.
However, Baek teaches an all-solid-state battery comprising a solid electrolyte, wherein the anode layer (anode) includes an anode active material (24a anode active material layer, Baek Fig. 3) on an anode current collector (24b anode current collector, Baek Fig.3). Baek further teaches that the anode material may “be any common anode active material used in the art”, with carbonaceous material listed as a suitable option (Baek [71]).
Inoue teaches an all-solid-state secondary battery comprising a solid electrolyte (1, Inoue Fig. 2) and an anode (7, Inoue Fig. 2) including an anode active material (3, Inoue Fig. 2) on an anode current collector (5, Inoue Fig. 2). Inoue teaches that “the anode current collector functions to collect the current from the anode active material layer” (Inoue [102]).
Since Baek teaches that it is suitable to form an anode active material on an anode current collector when fabricating an all-solid-state battery and Inoue teaches that a current collector collects current from the active material layer, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the battery of Adermann wherein the anode active material is a carbon-based material and the anode active material is on an anode current collector, in order to achieve an anode layer capable of interacting with lithium ions and provide a means for collecting generated current.
Regarding claim 16, Adermann in view of Baek and Inoue teaches all features of claims 1, 10, and 14, as described above. Adermann does not explicitly teach the electrochemical battery further comprising a second anode active material layer between the anode current collector and the first anode active material layer and/or between the solid electrolyte layer and the first anode active material layer, wherein the second anode active material layer is a metal layer including lithium or a lithium alloy.
Adermann teaches a solid electrolyte for use in electrochemical batteries comprising Li, P, S, O, Cl, and Br, wherein the anode comprises “suitable electrochemically active anode materials” known in the art, and, preferably, comprises graphitic carbon, metallic lithium, or a metal alloy comprising lithium as the anode active material (Adermann pg. 16 lines 12-15). Adermann further teaches that the electrochemical cells of the invention preferably “are selected from lithium-ion containing cells” and “in lithium-ion containing cells, the charge transport is effected by Li+ ions” (Adermann pg. 16 lines 16-19).
The instant specification states “the anode active material included in the first anode active material layer forms an alloy or compound with lithium ions transferred from the cathode layer. When the first anode active material layer is charged to exceed the charging capacity of the first anode active material layer, for example, lithium is precipitated on the rear surface of the first anode active material layer, that is, between the anode current collector and the first anode active material layer, and a metal layer corresponding to the second anode active material layer is formed by the precipitated lithium” (instant specification [103]).
Since Adermann and the instant invention teach a solid electrolyte represented by Formula 1, as described above for instant claim 1, Adermann teaches that the solid electrolyte is suitable for use in lithium ion batteries, and the instant specification discloses that a metal layer is formed when the first anode active material layer is charged to exceed the charging capacity of the first anode active material layer, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate a battery wherein the anode layer comprises an anode active material (first anode active material layer) capable of forming an alloy or compound with lithium ions, such as graphitic carbon, as taught by Adermann, in order to achieve an anode capable of intercalating and de-intercalating lithium ions. In this case, it would be expected that the electrochemical battery of Adermann would result in the formation of a metal layer including lithium or a lithium alloy upon charging the anode active material layer to exceed the charging capacity of the anode active material.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Adermann in view of Baek and Inoue, as applied to instant claims 1, 10-11, and 14 above, as evidenced by Zheng (Zheng and Dahn. Application of Carbon in Lithium-Ion Batteries. Carbon Materials for Advanced Technologies. Chapter 11, 341-387 (1999)).
Regarding claim 15, Adermann in view of Baek and Inoue teaches all features of claims 1, 10, and 14, as described above. Adermann further teaches the carbon-based anode active material including at least one selected from amorphous carbon and crystalline carbon (graphitic carbon, Adermann pg. 16 lines 14-15). Zheng teaches that graphitic carbon is used as an anode material in lithium-ion batteries and has a crystalline structure (Zheng pg. 353).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Adermann, as applied to instant claims 1 and 10-11 above, in view of Lian (Lian et al., Inorganic sulfide solid electrolytes for all-solid-state lithium secondary batteries. Journal of Materials Chemistry A. 7, 20540-20557 (2019)).
Regarding claim 17, Adermann teaches all features of claims 1 and 10-11, as described above. As described for instant claim 11, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate an electrochemical battery comprising a cathode layer including the solid electrolyte of Adermann and a cathode active material in order to obtain a battery suitable for a desired application.
Adermann teaches that the active materials for the cathode are “suitable electrochemically active cathode materials known in the art” (Adermann pg. 16 lines 12-13). Adermann is silent regarding specific cathode active materials that may be used.
However, Lian teaches that lithium transition metal oxides having a layered structure and lithium transition metal oxides having a spinel crystal structure are suitable for use in all-solid-state batteries (Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3).
Since Lian teaches that lithium transition metal oxides having a layered structure and lithium transition metal oxides having a spinel crystal structure are suitable for use in all-solid-state batteries, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a lithium transition metal oxide with a layered or spinal structure as the cathode active material in the cathode layer of Adermann in order to achieve the predictable result of a cathode layer capable of intercalating and de-intercalating lithium ions.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Adermann, as applied to instant claim 1 above, in view of Schneider (Schneider, H. et al. Stabilization of Highly Conductive Lithium Argyrodites by Means of Lithium Substitution: The Case of Li6Fe0.5PS6. Chemistry Select. 4, 12, 3351-3354 (2019)).
Regarding claim 22, Adermann teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Adermann does not teach the presence of M in the solid electrolyte compound formula, as claimed in instant claim 1.
Schneider teaches a lithium argyrodite solid electrolyte compound for use in all-solid-state batteries (Schneider abstract) that has Fe substitution for Li having a formula of Li7-2xFexPS6, wherein an example is Li6Fe0.5PS6 (Schneider pg. 3352 left column paragraph 2). Schneider teaches that the partial substitution of Li for Fe stabilizes the structure (Schneider pg. 3353 right column paragraph 3).
Schneider further teaches that halogen doping of the structures stabilized by partial lithium ion substitution may result in improved conductivity (Schneider pg. 3353 right column paragraph 4).
Since Schneider teaches that partial substitution of Li for Fe improves solid electrolyte stability and that this strategy may be combined with halogen doping, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to partially substitute Li for Fe in the solid electrolyte of Adermann, wherein 0<k<1, in order to improve structural stability of the solid electrolyte.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Objections
The objection to claim 15 is overcome by applicant’s amendment to claim 15 in the response received on October 10, 2025. The objection to claim 10 is withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments filed October 10, 2025 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On pages 9-12 of the response, applicant appears to allege that the claimed invention has surprising and unexpected results relative to the teachings of Adermann. Applicant states “solid electrolytes corresponding to the solid electrolyte recited in the instant claim 1 have a surprising and unexpected improvement in ion conductivity, when compared with solid electrolytes that fall outside the scope of the instant claims and squarely within the scope of the teachings of the Adermann reference”. Applicant further states “Formula 1 of the instant claim 1 closely corresponds to the compositions of the solid electrolytes of Examples 1, 2, and 4-7…which demonstrated excellent ionic conductivity” on page 11.
It is noted that it is the burden of Applicant to provide evidence that establishes that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b)(I). Applicants have the burden of explaining proffered data. See MPEP 716.02(b)(II). It is further noted that in order to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, Applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP 716.02(d) II. Additionally, the claims must be commensurate in scope with the proffered data to provide a nexus between the claims and the data establishing evidence of unexpected results. See MPEP 716.02(d).
The data presented by applicant on pages 10-11 of the response do not appear to be commensurate in scope with the ranges claimed in claim 1.
Regarding the range of a, there are no examples wherein a is greater than or equal to 2 (above the upper limit of the claimed range of 0<a<2).
Regarding the range of b, there are no examples wherein b is greater than or equal to 2 (above the upper limit of the claimed range of 0.7≤b<2).
Regarding the range of x, Example 4 (Table 2A) has the highest ionic conductivity; however, the value of x in Example 4 (x = 0.1) is outside the claimed range of 0.1<x≤0.4. Additionally, it is noted that there are no examples wherein x is less than 0.1.
Regarding the range of x, Example 1 has an ion conductivity of 6.9 mS/cm and Example 8 has an ion conductivity of 6.8 mS/cm. It is noted that the ion conductivities of Examples 1 and 8 are exceptionally close. However, the value of x in Example 8 is outside of the claimed range of 0.1<x≤0.4 (x = 0.5).
Additionally, Adermann discloses ranges of a, b, a/b, and x that overlap the claimed ranges, as described above.
Response – Rejoinder Request
Applicant’s request for rejoinder is acknowledged. However, a rejoinder of claims 19-20 is not permitted due to claims 1-18 not being in condition for allowance, as described above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhou (Zhou, L. et al. Solvent Engineered Design of Argyrodite Li6PS5X (X = Cl, Br, I) Solid Electrolytes with High Ionic Conductivity. ACS Energy Letters. 4, 265-270. Published November 20, 2018): appears to disclose a solid electrolyte compound having an argyrodite structure and comprising Li, P, S, Cl, and Br (Table 3).
Rupert (US 2020/0087155 A1): appears to disclose a compound having an argyrodite structure and an electrolyte comprising the compound (claim 20).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm 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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/J.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789