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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/20/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 03/20/2026, has been entered. Claims 4, 8, and 14 are amended; claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, 14, and 17-22 stand as originally or previously presented; claims 13 and 15-16 are cancelled; and claim 23 is new. There is no support for the amendments found in Claim 4.
Upon considered said amendments and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C.103 rejection set forth in Office Action mailed 12/23/2025 has been maintained (and altered as required by amendment), as set forth below. In the interest of compact prosecution, Claims 4 and 23 are rejected using newly cited art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 is amended to recited “The solid material according to claim 1 wherein a crystallization degree of the solid material is from 85% to 100%.” However, the claimed range of 85% to 100% is not present in the Specification. The Specification discloses “The crystallization degree of the solid material (the crystallization degree of a crystal structure of which the ionic conductivity is higher than that of an amorphous body) is preferably comprised 25 from 80% to 100%” (Instant Specification Page 8, Lines 22-25). The Specification must explicitly disclose a crystallization value of 85% in order to support the amended claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-12, 17-19, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20210094824 A1, hereinafter Lee), filed in Notice of References Cited, dated 06/23/2025.
Regarding Claims 1-3, Lee discloses the limitations regarding comprising a solid material (Lee, solid ion conductor, [0044]) according to general formula (I) as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
30
188
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X is selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, I and Br (Claim 1), and more specifically Cl (Claim 2);
0.01 ≤ x ≤ 0.06 (Claim 1), or more specifically 0.02 ≤ x ≤ 0.06 (Claim 3);
and 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.5 (Lee, a solid ion conductor represented by Formula 2a has an argyrodite-type crystal structure, and Formula 2a is Li7-x-zM1xPS6-zClz, wherein M1 may be at least one of Cu, and the conditions of 0<x<0.05 and 1≤z≤2 are satisfied, [0044];
Cu = Cu, 0<x<0.05, overlapping the claimed range of 0.01 ≤ x ≤ 0.06 (Claim 1), and more specifically 0.02 ≤ x ≤ 0.06 (Claim 3);
P = P, and 1 = 1;
S = S, and y = 0, falling within the claimed range of 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.5;
X = Cl, and 1≤z≤2, overlapping the requirement that Cl has a subscript of 1, and meeting the requirement that X is selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, I, and Br (Claim 1), and more specifically Cl (Claim 2)
Formula 2a of Lee largely overlaps the claimed general formula (I), especially when y = 0.
Regarding Claim 5, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the limitations regarding a solid material (Lee, solid ion conductor, [0044]), wherein the solid material comprises at least peaks at position of: 15.65° +/- 0.50, 25.53° +/- 0.50, 30.16° +/- 0.50, and 31.52 +/- 0.50 (2θ) when analyzed by x-ray diffraction using CuKα radiation at 25°C (Lee, the solid ion conductor compound may have a peak, when analyzed by X-ray diffraction using CuKα radiation, for example, at a location of about 15.65 °2θ±0.50°2θ, about 25.48°2θ±0.50°2θ, about 30.01°2θ±0.50°2θ, about 31.38°2θ±0.50°2θ,, Figure 1, [0065]).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the limitations regarding a solid material (Lee, solid ion conductor, [0044]), wherein it is in powder form (Lee, the solid electrolyte may be in the form of a powder, [0070]) with a distribution of particle diameters having a D50 between 0.05 µm and 10 µm (Lee, an average particle diameter of the solid electrolyte may be from about 1 µm to about 10 µm, [0078]; the disclosed range of about 1 µm to about 10 µm falls within the claimed range of 0.05 µm and 10 µm).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the limitations regarding a method for producing solid material (Lee, method of preparing solid ion conductor compound, [0138]) comprising at least bringing at least lithium sulfide, phosphorous sulfide, halogen compound and a copper compound, optionally in one or more solvents (Lee, combining Li2S as a lithium precursor, P2S5 as a phosphor precursor, LiCl as a chlorine precursor, and Cu2S as a copper precursor, [0138]).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the limitations regarding a process for the preparation of a solid material (Lee, method of preparing solid ion conductor compound, [0138]) comprising at least the process steps of:
a) obtaining a composition by admixing stoichiometric amounts of lithium sulfide, phosphorous sulfide, halogen compound and a copper compound, under an inert atmosphere (Lee, combining Li2S as a lithium precursor, P2S5 as a phosphor precursor, LiCl as a chlorine precursor, and Cu2S as a copper precursor in a stoichiometric ratio and grinding and mixing for 1 hour at 100 rpm in a planetary ball mill having a zirconia (YSZ) ball and having the Ar atmosphere, [0138]);
b) applying a mechanical treatment to the composition obtained in step a) (Lee, planetary ball mill having a zirconia (YSZ) ball, [0138]),
d) heating the obtained residue obtained in step c) at a temperature in a range of from 100°C to 700°C, under an inert atmosphere, thereby forming the solid material (Lee, vacuum-sealed pellet was heated at 1.0° C/min from room temperature to 500° C. using an electric furnace, and then heat-treated at 500° C for 12 hours, and then cooled to room temperature at 1.0° C./min to prepare the solid ion conductor compound, [0138]);
Regarding Claim 9, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the limitations regarding a process (Lee, method of preparing solid ion conductor compound, [0138]) wherein the copper compound is selected from the group consisting of Cu2S (Lee, Cu2S, [0138]).
Regarding Claims 10, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the limitations regarding a process (Lee, method of preparing solid ion conductor compound, [0138]), wherein the lithium sulfide is Li2S, the phosphorous sulfide is P2S5, the halogen compound is LiCl, and the copper compound is Cu2S (Lee, combining Li2S as a lithium precursor, P2S5 as a phosphor precursor, LiCl as a chlorine precursor, and Cu2S as a copper precursor in a stoichiometric ratio and grinding and mixing for 1 hour at 100 rpm in a planetary ball mill having a zirconia (YSZ) ball and having the Ar atmosphere, [0138]).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the limitations regarding a process (Lee, method of preparing solid ion conductor compound, [0138]). Lee is silent regarding the solvent is selected in the group consisting of alkanols; carbonates; acetates; ethers; organic nitriles; aliphatic hydrocarbons; and aromatic hydrocarbons.
However, Claim 8 discloses “optionally in one or more solvents,” so the solvent is optional.
Regarding Claim 12, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the limitations regarding a process (Lee, method of preparing solid ion conductor compound, [0138]) wherein in the b) the mechanical treatment is performed by dry milling (Lee, planetary ball mill having a zirconia (YSZ) ball, [0138]).
Regarding Claims 17-19, Lee discloses the limitations regarding electrochemical device (Claim 18) (Lee, electrochemical cell, [0072]) and a solid state battery (Claim 19) (Lee, all-solid secondary battery, [0072]) comprising a solid electrolyte (Claim 17) (Lee, the solid ion conductor compound is used as a solid electrolyte, [0077]) comprising at least a solid material (Lee, solid ion conductor, [0044]) according to general formula (I) as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
30
188
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X is selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, I and Br;
0.01 ≤ x ≤ 0.06; and 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.5 (Lee, a solid ion conductor represented by Formula 2a has an argyrodite-type crystal structure, and Formula 2a is Li7-x-zM1xPS6-zClz, wherein M1 may be at least one of Cu, and the conditions of 0<x<0.05 and 1≤z≤2 are satisfied, [0044];
Cu = Cu, 0<x<0.05, overlapping the claimed range of 0.01 ≤ x ≤ 0.06;
P = P, and 1 = 1;
S = S, and y = 0, falling within the claimed range of 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.5;
X = Cl, and 1≤z≤2, overlapping the requirement that Cl has a subscript of 1, and meeting the requirement that X is selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, I, and Br (Claim 1);
Formula 2a of Lee largely overlaps the claimed general formula (I), especially when y = 0.
Regarding Claims 21, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the limitations regarding an electrode (Lee, cathode, [0084]) comprising at least:
a metal substrate (Lee, cathode current collector uses an aluminum plate, [0097]);
directly adhered onto said metal substrate (Lee, cathode active material layer over a current collector, [0065]), at least one layer made of a composition comprising:
(i) a solid material (Lee, cathode active material layer may further include the solid ion conductor, [0092]) of formula (I) as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
30
188
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X is selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, I and Br;
0.01 ≤ x ≤ 0.06; and 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.5 (Lee, a solid ion conductor represented by Formula 2a has an argyrodite-type crystal structure, and Formula 2a is Li7-x-zM1xPS6-zClz, wherein M1 may be at least one of Cu, and the conditions of 0<x<0.05 and 1≤z≤2 are satisfied, [0044];
Cu = Cu, 0<x<0.05, overlapping the claimed range of 0.01 ≤ x ≤ 0.06;
P = P, and 1 = 1;
S = S, and y = 0, falling within the claimed range of 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.5;
X = Cl, and 1≤z≤2, overlapping the requirement that Cl has a subscript of 1, and meeting the requirement that X is selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, I, and Br;
Formula 2a of Lee largely overlaps the claimed general formula (I), especially when y = 0.
(ii) at least one electro-active compound (EAC) (Lee, cathode active material may be a lithium transition metal oxide, [0086]);
(iv) optionally at least one electro-conductive material (ECM) (Lee, cathode active material layer may include a conductive material, such as carbon black, [0094]);
(v) optionally a lithium salt (LIS) (Lee, the cathode active material includes a lithium salt, [0088]);
(vi) optionally at least one polymeric binding material (P) (Lee, the cathode active material layer may include the binder, such as polyvinylidene fluoride, [0093]).
Regarding Claim 22, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the limitations regarding a separator (Lee, solid electrolyte layer located between the cathode layer and the anode layer, [0075]), comprising at least the solid material (Lee, the solid ion conductor compound represented by Formula 1 is used as the solid electrolyte, [0077]);
optionally at least one polymeric binding material (P) (Lee, the binder included in the solid electrolyte layer may be polyvinylidene fluoride, [0083]);
optionally at least one metal salt, (Lee, the sulfide based solid electrolyte may include at least one of Li2S, [0062]).
Claim(s) 4 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20210094824 A1, hereinafter Lee), as applied to Claim 1 above, and in view of Nazar et al. (US 20210323824 A1, hereinafter Nazar).
Regarding Claims 4, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the limitations regarding a solid material (Lee, solid ion conductor, [0044]). Lee is silent regarding a crystallization degree of the solid material is from 85% to 100%.
Nazar discloses a solid material (Nazar, solid lithium ion conducting material, Title), wherein a crystallization degree of the solid material is from 85% to 100% (Nazar, a solid material according to the invention typically contains a fraction consisting of one or more crystalline phases as detectable by the X-ray diffraction technique. Preferably said fraction of crystalline phases makes up 80% or more of the total weight of the solid material, [0140]; the disclosed range of 80% or more overlaps the claimed range of 85% to 100%).
Nazar teaches that a solid lithium ion conducting material comprising of this crystallinity will exhibit favorable lithium ion conductivity (Nazar, [0143]).
Lee and Nazar are analogous to the current invention as they are directed towards a solid ion conductor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to routinely design the solid material of Lee to have a crystallinity within the range 80% or more, as taught by Nazar, in order to achieve favorably lithium ion conductivity. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 23, modified Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee discloses the limitations regarding a solid material (Lee, solid ion conductor, [0044]). Modified Lee is silent regarding a ratio between an amount of structural units PS43- and an amount of structural units PO43- ranges from 1000:1 to 9:1.
Nazar discloses a solid material (Nazar, solid lithium ion conducting material, Title), wherein a ratio between an amount of structural units PS43- and an amount of structural units PO43- ranges from 1000:1 to 9:1 (Nazar, preferably a ratio between the amount of structural units PS43- and an amount of structural units PO43- is in the range of from 30:1 to 1.5:1, [0142]).
Nazar teaches that a higher ratio between the amount of structural units PS43- and structural units PO43-corresponds to a lower fraction of 0 which is difficult to obtain, because apparently a certain degree of replacement of sulfur in the structural units PS43- by oxygen inevitably occurs during the solvent based synthesis. At a lower ratio between the amount of structural units PS43- and structural units PO43-, corresponding to a higher fraction of O, the composition of the solid material is too far apart from the composition of the lithium argyrodites obtained by the conventional process involving reactive milling, and such different composition may have negative effects on the lithium ion conductivity, chemical and mechanical stability and/or processability (Nazar, [0142]).
Lee and Nazar are analogous to the current invention as they are all directed towards a solid ion conductor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to routinely design the solid ion conductor of Lee to have a ratio between the amount of structural units PS43- and an amount of structural units PO43- is in the range of from 30:1 to 1.5:1, as taught by Nazar, in order to improve lithium ion conductivity, chemical and mechanical stability and/or processability.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20210050620 A1, hereinafter Lee), as applied to Claim 1 above, and in view of Rupert (US 20210050620 A1), filed in Notice of References Cited, dated 06/23/2025.
Regarding Claim 14, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the limitations regarding a process (Lee, method of preparing solid ion conductor compound, [0138]), said process comprising at least the process steps of
a') obtaining a solution by admixing stoichiometric amounts of lithium compounds, sulfide compounds, phosphorous compounds, halogen compound and a copper compound, under an inert atmosphere (Lee, combining Li2S as a lithium precursor, P2S5 as a phosphor precursor, LiCl as a chlorine precursor, and Cu2S as a copper precursor in a stoichiometric ratio and grinding and mixing for 1 hour at 100 rpm in a planetary ball mill having a zirconia (YSZ) ball and having the Ar atmosphere, [0138]), and
c') optionally heating the solid material as obtained in step b'), at a temperature in the range of from 100 °C to 700 °C, under an inert atmosphere (Lee, vacuum-sealed pellet was heated at 1.0° C/min from room temperature to 500° C. using an electric furnace, and then heat-treated at 500° C for 12 hours, and then cooled to room temperature at 1.0° C./min to prepare the solid ion conductor compound, [0138])
Lee is silent regarding one or more solvents, b') removing at least a portion of the one or more solvents from the solution as obtained in step a'), so that to obtain a solid material
Rupert discloses a process for the preparation of solid materials (Rupert, method of fabricating solid materials, [0103]) a') obtaining a solution by admixing stoichiometric amounts of lithium compounds, sulfide compounds, phosphorous compounds, halogen compound and a copper compound, (Lee, ball milling the appropriate amounts of P2S5, Li2S, LiCl, and CuS, [0103]), in one or more solvents, under an inert atmosphere (Lee, a slurry, paste, or solution, comprising on one or more solvents, [0011]).
b') removing at least a portion of the one or more solvents from the solution as obtained in step a'), so that to obtain a solid material (Lee, in argyrodite solution synthesis, bulk solvents are removed at lower temperatures, typically below 100 °C, [0050]);
c') optionally heating the solid material as obtained in step b'), at a temperature in the range of from 100 °C to 700 °C, under an inert atmosphere (Lee, a portion of the ball milled materials were annealed at 450 °C, [0103]).
Rupert teaches that in argyrodite solution synthesis, a pure argyrodite may be obtained (Rupert, [0050]). Rupert further discloses that an argyrodite may be synthesized by ball-milling or solution synthesis (Rupert, [0047]).
Lee and Rupert are analogous to the current invention as they are all directed towards a sulfide-based solid material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to routinely design the solid ion conductor compound of Lee by using the argyrodite solution synthesis method of Rupert, in order to increase the purity of the argyrodite. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that ball-milling and solution synthesis are obvious substitutions as a process to prepare a solid material.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20210094824 A1, hereinafter Lee), as applied to Claim 17 above, and in view of Osada (US 20200136179 A1, hereinafter Osada), filed in Notice of References Cited, dated 06/23/2025.
Regarding Claims 20, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the limitations regarding a solid state battery (Lee, alkali metal ion battery comprising a solid electrolyte, [0088]) comprising a solid electrolyte (Lee, solid electrolyte composition, [0088]). Lee is silent regarding a vehicle comprising at least a solid state battery.
Osada discloses a vehicle (Osada, electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles, [0002]) comprising a solid state battery (Osada, an all-solid-state battery, [0088]) comprising a solid electrolyte (Osada, solid electrolyte layer, [0070]).
Osada teaches that batteries can be used for electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles (Osada, [0002]).
Lee and Osada are analogous to the current invention as they are directed towards solid state batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the solid state battery of Lee in a vehicle, as taught by Osada, because the usage of batteries in electric vehicles is known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Lee's Example 3, which discloses a copper content of 0.12, exhibited an ion conductivity of 3.7 mS/cm. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have reasonably expected for the claimed range of 0.01 ≤ x ≤ 0.06 for the copper content to yield higher conductivities compared to when the copper content is outside of the claimed range.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that while a copper content of 0.12 may have resulted in a higher ion conductivity, it does not negate the fact that a copper content within a range of 0.01 < x < 0.06 had an overall higher ionic conductivity (Lee's Examples 1, 2, 9, and 10), especially compared with copper contents outside of the range (Lee's Examples 3-6 and Comparative Example 1). Further, the copper values shown in the Affidavit, filed 9/23/2025, were also tested by Lee and demonstrated the same trend. The Affidavit does not test a copper value of 0.12, so it would be possible that the Instant General Formula (I) would follow the same trend as disclosed Formula I of Lee.
MPEP 716.02(b) states:
The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Mere conclusions in appellants’ brief that the claimed polymer had an unexpectedly increased impact strength "are not entitled to the weight of conclusions accompanying the evidence, either in the specification or in a declaration."); Ex parte C, 27 USPQ2d 1492 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Applicant alleged unexpected results with regard to the claimed soybean plant, however there was no basis for judging the practical significance of data with regard to maturity date, flowering date, flower color, or height of the plant.). See also In re Nolan, 553 F.2d 1261, 1267, 193 USPQ 641, 645 (CCPA 1977) and In re Eli Lilly, 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990) as discussed in MPEP § 716.02(c).
Applicant argues that the stoichiometric ratio of the starting materials was changed to yield compositions with variable amount of copper as well as lithium. Thus, the changes in ionic conductivity shown in Lee are not necessarily exclusive to changes in the Cu content.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that both Instant General Formula (I) and the disclosed Formula 2 of Lee recognizes that the amount of lithium is affected by amount of copper. So, by keeping all of the other variables constant, the effects of changing the amount of copper would still be recognize even if the amount of lithium changes.
Applicant argues that Lee reports peaks at locations of about 25.48°2θ±0.50°2θ, about 30.01°2θ±0.50°2θ, about 31.38°2θ±0.50°2θ (Lee, [0065]). Thus, the claimed peak of 15.65° +/- 0.50 is not taught or suggested by Lee. Further, Applicant believes that this is clearer from FIG. 1 of Lee, where there is no distinct peak at 15.65 +/- 0.50. Rather, Lee's examples demonstrate a broad shoulder which a person of ordinary skill in the art would associate with amorphous phases where the atoms or molecules are randomly arranged or possess only short-range order that scatters X-rays.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Annotated Figure 1 of Lee shown below, clearly demonstrates a peak at 15.65° +/- 0.50, as claimed.
PNG
media_image2.png
625
850
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:50 - 7:50 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, NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/K.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights