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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12-18-2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12-19-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the cited prior art requires “one or more metals M”, as b is defined as ≥1. Therefore, compounds in the cited prior art are expressly defined to include an “M” sublattice of metals capable of oxidation (i.e., redox-active), which is fundamental to Barker's “electrode active materials” concept. Applicant further argues that Claim 1 does not recite any “M” metal, nor any “transition metal capable of oxidation,” as is central to the cited prior art, and does not teach or suggest using its active electrode compounds as electrolytes. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s claimed subject matter requires B to include magnesium [Mg] and calcium [Ca], and both are capable oxidation. In addition, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 (see MPEP § 2143, E).
Applicant arguments are still not persuasive for reasons made herein and of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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(s) 1-10 is/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 U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2003/0013019 hereinafter Barker.
Regarding Claim 1, Barker teaches a compound of the formula shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
432
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, " [w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp." An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._,_, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 -97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form such compound wherein A is Li, XY4 is PS4, and Z is OCl before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Barker discloses that such material can form a battery with increased capacity (paragraph 21).
Regarding Claims 2-5, Barker teaches a compound of the formula shown above wherein A is Li, XY4 is PS4, and Z is OCl (see paragraphs 67-73 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 6, Barker teaches a method of manufacturing the compound shown above (paragraph 76 and Examples 1-25).
Regarding Claim 7, Barker teaches an electrolyte for a battery, wherein the electrolyte comprises an ionic conductive material (paragraph 138). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such ionic conductive material in the solid electrolyte (see paragraphs 67-73 and as evidence by WO 2019/241642 A1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because such material can form a battery with increased capacity (paragraph 21). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding Claims 8-10, Barker teaches a battery that comprises an electrochemical module including a stack of elements and the electrolyte above (paragraphs 22-23).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSEI K AMPONSAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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.
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights