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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/3/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-7 and 9-16 remain pending in this application. The examiner acknowledges no new matter has been added.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims has overcome the objection to claim 3, the objections to the abstract, and some of the objections to the specification previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 9/5/2025.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 5, and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/3/2025 regarding the objection to trademarks in the specification and the objection the word count of the abstract in pages 8-9 of applicant’s remarks have been fully considered.
The examiner understands if there are not generic alternatives for trade names or trademarks. The examiner is not requesting the deletion of the terms or arguing that that generic alternatives exist. The examiner is objecting to trademarks that currently do not include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM, or ® following the term. See examples in the list below of how they should appear.
Regarding the abstract, the examiner withdraws the objection to the word count of the abstract.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 13 of page 3 of the amended specification recites “Li2In2/3Cl4.” This should recite --Li2In2/3Cl4.--
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term Sigma-Aldrich on line 14 of page 36, Bio-Logic on line 24 on page 36, PANalytical on line 3 of page 38, PIXcel on line 4 of page 38, Oak Ridge National Laboratory on line 10 of page 38, and Alfa Aesar on line 19 of page 41, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM, or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
SIGMA ALDRICH® US RN: 6026445
BIOLOGIC® US RN: 7602000
PANalytical® US RN: 3436142
PIXcel® US RN: 3790284
Oak Ridge National Laboratory® US RN: 5447071
ALFA AESAR® US RN: 2460769
The examiner understands if there is not generic alternatives for trade names or trade marks. The examiner is not requesting the deletion of the terms; however they should include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM, or ® following the term. See examples in the list above of how they should appear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishio et al. (US 2021/0359340 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nishio et al. teaches a solid material having a spinel structure and a composition according to general formula (I)
LiaAX4 (I)
wherein
X is selected from the group consisting of Cl, F, Br and I
(a) A is M1bM2c
wherein M1 is a first trivalent metal and M2 is a second trivalent metal different from M1
≤ b ≤ 0.80
0.1 ≤ c ≤ 0.7
0.6 ≤ (b+c) ≤ 0.8
a = 4 - 3(b+c);
by the halide solid electrolyte in [0069] by LipMeqYrX’6 where p + mq + 3r = 6 and r > 0 are satisfied. Me may be Al or Sc in [0070]. Me may also be In because it is a metal in group 13 not excluded from the list in the description of metals in [0069]. It is reasonably best understood that X’ refers to the options of X may be F, Cl, Br, and I in [0068]. This is further supported by the examples where X is Cl, and Br in [0070].
The composition of Nishio et al. overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
One of the examples of the resulting compounds is Li3Al0.5Y0.5Cl6 of the overlapping ranges. p would be 3, and q and r would be 0.5. m is the valance of Me which we know for Al and Sc may be 3+ and is even supported by claim 3 of the instant application. Therefore,
p
+
m
q
+
3
r
=
6
Becomes,
3
+
3
*
0.5
+
3
*
0.5
=
6
3
+
3
=
6
6
=
6
For example, Li3Al0.5Y0.5Cl6 would meet the limitation of having a composition according to the general formula (I) because the composition has the same empirical formula as a formula within the general formula (I). Li2Al1/3Y1/3Cl4 is a formula within the options provided by general formula (I) as Cl4 maps to X4 in which X is Cl. Al1/3Y1/3 maps to A or M1bM2c wherein Al1/3 maps to M1b, a trivalent metal in which 1/3 maps to b and also satisfies the expression 0.1 ≤ b ≤ 0.8. Y1/3 maps to M3c, another trivalent metal in which 1/3 maps to c and also satisfies the expression 0.1 ≤ c ≤ 0.7. Therefore, A is satisfied by Al1/3Y1/3. Because b is 1/3 and c is 1/3, (b + c) is 2/3 which satisfies the expression 0.6 ≤ (b + c) ≤ 0.8. Furthermore, the equation 4 – 3(b + c) is then equal to 4 – 3(2/3) or 2. Therefore, a = 2 of which the molecular formula Li2Al1/3Y1/3Cl4 satisfies because of Li2 maps to Lia.
Li2Al1/3Y1/3Cl4 has the same empirical formula of Li3Al0.5Y0.5Cl6 or the same whole-number ratio of subscripts for each element within the compound. In this case, the empirical formula may be calculated by multiplying the subscripts of Li2Al1/3Y1/3Cl4 by the inverse of the non-whole number subscript as shown below.
2
L
i
a
t
o
m
s
*
3
2
=
3
L
i
a
t
o
m
s
1
3
A
l
a
t
o
m
s
*
3
2
=
0.5
A
l
a
t
o
m
s
1
3
Y
a
t
o
m
s
*
3
2
=
0.5
Y
a
t
o
m
s
4
C
l
a
t
o
m
s
*
3
2
=
6
C
l
a
t
o
m
s
L
i
2
A
l
1
3
Y
1
3
C
l
4
→
L
i
3
A
l
0.5
Y
0.5
C
l
6
Therefore, because Li3Al0.5Y0.5Cl6 has the same compositional ratio as Li2Al1/3Y1/3Cl4 which satisfies general formula (I), it meets the limitation of a composition according to general formula (I).
Nishio et al. teaches this second electrolyte may be homogeneously dispersed with the first electrolyte material in [0047-0048] of which the first electrolyte material may be crystalline in [0020]. Because the prior art discloses the same compositional ratio and also notes at minimum the electrolyte is in a homogenous structure with a crystalline electrolyte, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect it to have the claimed property of being spinel lacking evidence to the contrary.
Additionally, regarding claim 1, Nishio teaches Nishio et al. teaches a solid material having a spinel structure and a composition according to general formula (I)
LiaAX4 (I)
wherein
X is selected from the group consisting of Cl, F, Br and I
(b) A is M1dM3e
wherein M1 is a first trivalent metal and M3 is a divalent metal different from M1
≤ d ≤ 0.8
0.2 ≤ e ≤ 0.7
0.9 ≤ (d+e) ≤ 1.1
a = 4 – 3d – 2e.
by the electrolyte for an all-solid secondary battery in [0014] that would reasonably be expected to be a solid electrolyte if it’s an electrolyte in an all-solid battery. In [0012] the electrolyte has the composition Li4-3a-cbAlaMbFxClyBr4-x-y where M is at least one selected from the group consisting of Mg and Cr; c represents a valence of M; and the following five inequalities are satisfied: 0<a<1.33, 0≤b<2, 0<x<4, 0≤y<4, and (x+y) 4 in [0012]. In [0004] it is clarified that (x+y)≤4.
The composition of Nishio et al. overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
One of the examples of the resulting compounds is Li1.25Al0.75Mg0.25FClBr2 of the overlapping ranges. X would map to Cl, Br, and F of the general formula. F of the example maps to Fx of the Nishio et al. equation in which x is 1 which falls within the range 0<x<4. Cl of the example maps to Cly of the Nishio et al. equation in which y is 1 which falls within the range 0≤y<4. This satisfies the equation (x+y) ≤ 4 because 2≤4 is satisfied. Therefore, the subscript of Br is 2 because 2 = 4 – 1 – 1. The cumulative atoms of the FClBr2 portion of the example compound is 4 which maps to X4 of the instant claim.
Ala of the Nishio et al. equation maps to M1d of the instant claim limitation because Al is a trivalent and d would be satisfied because 0.75 falls within 0.3 ≤ d ≤ 0.8. Mb of the Nishio et al. equation maps to M3e of the instant claim limitation because M may be Mg which is a divalent metal and e would be satisfied because 0.25 satisfies 0.2 ≤ e ≤ 0.7. 0.9 ≤ (d+e) ≤ 1.1 of the instant claim limitation is satisfied because the compound maps to d + e being 1 of which satisfies the inequality. c would be 2 because Mg, an option of M, is a divalent metal with 2+ charges, and a would be 0.75 and b would be 0.25. Both a and b are satisfied because 0.75 and 0.25 falls within the ranges 0<a<1.33 and 0≤b<2 respectively of the Nishio et al. inequalities.
Therefore,
4
-
3
a
-
c
b
=
S
u
b
s
c
r
i
p
t
o
f
L
i
Becomes,
4
-
3
*
3
4
-
2
*
1
4
=
S
u
b
s
c
r
i
p
t
o
f
L
i
4
-
9
4
-
1
2
=
S
u
b
s
t
r
i
p
t
o
f
L
i
5
4
o
r
1.25
=
S
u
b
s
t
r
i
p
t
o
f
L
i
The subscript of 1.25 of Li satisfies the instant claim limitation of a = 4 – 3d - 2e because,
s
u
b
s
c
r
i
p
t
o
f
L
i
=
4
-
3
d
-
2
e
5
4
=
4
-
3
3
4
-
2
1
4
5
4
=
4
-
9
4
-
1
2
5
4
=
5
4
Thus, Li1.25Al0.75Mg0.25FClBr2 falls within the chemical compounds of Nishio et al. and overlaps the instant claim limitations.
Nishio et al. teaches the first electrolyte material may be crystalline in [0020]. Because the prior art discloses an electrolyte composition overlapping the claimed composition and notes it may be a crystalline electrolyte, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect it to have the claimed property of being spinel lacking evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 5, Liang et al. teaches wherein X is Cl by Cl in [0069].
Regarding claim 3, Liang et al. teaches the solid material according to claim 1 having a composition according to general formula (Ia)
LiaM1bM2cX4 (Ia)
wherein
0.1 ≤ b ≤ 0.7
0.1 ≤ c ≤ 0.7
0.6 ≤ (b+c) ≤ 0.8
a = 4 - 3(b+c)
M1 and M2 are different trivalent metal selected from the group consisting of Al, Sc, and Y
by the halide solid electrolyte in [0069] by LipMeqYrX’6 where p + mq + 3r = 6 and r > 0 are satisfied. Me may be Al or Sc in [0070]. Me may also be In because it is a metal in group 13 not excluded from the list in the description of metals in [0069]. It is reasonably best understood that X’ refers to the options of X may be F, Cl, Br, and I in [0068]. This is further supported by the examples where X is Cl, and Br in [0070].
The composition of Nishio et al. overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
One of the examples of the resulting compounds is Li3Al0.5Y0.5Cl6 of the overlapping ranges. p would be 3, and q and r would be 0.5. m is the valance of Me which we know for Al and Sc may be 3+ and is even supported by claim 3 of the instant application. Therefore,
p
+
m
q
+
3
r
=
6
Becomes,
3
+
3
*
0.5
+
3
*
0.5
=
6
3
+
3
=
6
6
=
6
For example, Li3Al0.5Y0.5Cl6 would meet the limitation of having a composition according to the general formula (I) because the composition has the same empirical formula as a formula within the general formula (I). Li2Al1/3Y1/3Cl4 is a formula within the options provided by general formula (I) as Cl4 maps to X4 in which X is Cl. Al1/3Y1/3 maps to A or M1bM2c wherein Al1/3 maps to M1b, a trivalent metal in which 1/3 maps to b and also satisfies the expression 0.1 ≤ b ≤ 0.8. Y1/3 maps to M3c, another trivalent metal in which 1/3 maps to c and also satisfies the expression 0.1 ≤ c ≤ 0.7. Therefore, A is satisfied by Al1/3Y1/3. Because b is 1/3 and c is 1/3, (b + c) is 2/3 which satisfies the expression 0.6 ≤ (b + c) ≤ 0.8. Furthermore, the equation 4 – 3(b + c) is then equal to 4 – 3(2/3) or 2. Therefore, a = 2 of which the molecular formula Li2Al1/3Y1/3Cl4 satisfies because of Li2 maps to Lia.
Li2Al1/3Y1/3Cl4 has the same empirical formula of Li3Al0.5Y0.5Cl6 or the same whole-number ratio of subscripts for each element within the compound. In this case, the empirical formula may be calculated by multiplying the subscripts of Li2Al1/3Y1/3Cl4 by the inverse of the non-whole number subscript as shown below.
2
L
i
a
t
o
m
s
*
3
2
=
3
L
i
a
t
o
m
s
1
3
A
l
a
t
o
m
s
*
3
2
=
0.5
A
l
a
t
o
m
s
1
3
Y
a
t
o
m
s
*
3
2
=
0.5
Y
a
t
o
m
s
4
C
l
a
t
o
m
s
*
3
2
=
6
C
l
a
t
o
m
s
L
i
2
A
l
1
3
Y
1
3
C
l
4
→
L
i
3
A
l
0.5
Y
0.5
C
l
6
Therefore, because Li3Al0.5Y0.5Cl6 has the same compositional ratio as Li2Al1/3Y1/3Cl4 which satisfies general formula (I), it meets the limitation of a composition according to general formula (I).
Regarding claim 16, Nishio et al. teaches wherein M1 is selected from the group consisting of Sb, Al, and In, in Me may be Al or Sc in [0070]. Me may also be In because it is a metal in group 13 not excluded from the list in the description of metals in [0069]. It may also be Sb or Nb as noted in [0069] and [0070]. Me may also be Mo because it is a metal in group 6 not excluded from the list in the description of metals in [0069].
In [0069], when Nishio et al. notes “Me is at least one selected from the group consisting of metal element other than Li and Y and metalloid elements,” it is reasonably understood to mean Me may be metals, other than Li and Y, or metalloids. The alternative interpretation of Me may be metals other than Li, Y, or metalloids would not make sense due to the duplicate use of “and,” and that metalloids are not metals.
The claim limitation of wherein M3 is selected from the group consisting of Mg, Ca, and Zn is not required to be met because a composition containing M3 is not necessarily required to meet the claim limitations of claim 1. Claim 16, as currently worded, does not require M3, just that if M3 is present, it is selected from the group consisting of Mg, Ca, and Zn.
However, as noted above in the rejection of claim 1, the composition of 1(b) may be met and Mg and Ca may be present as noted in [0012].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220399569 A1 teaches Li2In1/3Sc1/3Cl4. This was cited in the non-final rejection filed 9/5/2025.
US 20220208410 A1 teaches Li2InxSc0.666-xCl4 where x 0≤x≤0.666. This was cited in the non-final rejection filed 9/5/2025.
US 20190319303 A1 teaches trivalent materials and lithium spinel structures. This was cited in the non-final rejection filed 9/5/2025.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KATHERINE J METZGER whose telephone number is (571)272-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (1st week) or Monday - Friday (2nd week) 7:30am-5:00am - 9-day biweekly schedule.
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, Milton Cano can be reached at (313) 446-4937. 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.
/KATHERINE J METZGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/MILTON I CANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1723