Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/923,277

SOLID ELECTROLYTE, ELECTRODE MIXTURE AND BATTERY

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 04, 2022
Examiner
KUMAR, SRILAKSHMI K
Art Unit
1700
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Mitsui Mining & Smelting Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
55%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 1m
To Grant
71%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 55% of resolved cases
55%
Career Allow Rate
305 granted / 551 resolved
-9.6% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 1m
Avg Prosecution
415 currently pending
Career history
966
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.7%
-38.3% vs TC avg
§103
47.7%
+7.7% vs TC avg
§102
21.1%
-18.9% vs TC avg
§112
21.0%
-19.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 551 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Arguments Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, as well as the Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed on 9/18/25 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-7 based upon obviousness as set forth in the last Office action because: The declaration and the arguments relied on Example 4 of Takahashi et al. and not on Comparative Example 3 in which the rejection of record below relied on where the claimed molar ratios of X/P and O/P are met. In addition, the declaration hasn’t established the particular solid electrolyte having a crystalline phase with an argyrodite-type crystal structure containing the claimed elemental Li, P, S, X, and O. Further, the declaration is based on molar ratios of X/P and O/P outside that of the claimed invention and therefore, does not commensurate in scope of the claimed invention. For the reasons above, the declaration and arguments are not persuasive. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et all., WO 2019176895 (IDS of 11/4/22) relying on U.S. PGPub 2021/0013542 as English translation. With regard to claims 1-5, Takahashi et al. teach a solid electrolyte comprising elemental lithium (Li), elemental phosphorous (P), elemental sulfur (S), and elemental halogen (Cl, Br), and oxygen (O). See abstract, [0002], [0010], [0018], [0020], [0021], [0023], [0024], [0029], [0031], and [0034]. Further, Takahashi et al. teach that the solid electrolyte has a crystalline phase with an argyrodite-type crystal structure. See abstract, [0002], [0009], [0010], [0011], [0018], and [0029]. In addition, Takahashi et al. teach a molar ratio of (halogen/phosphorous) Cl/P of 1.75 [10.2/5.8] and a molar ratio of (oxygen/phosphorous) O/P of 0.12 [0.7/5.8], both ratios falling within their respective claimed range. See Table 3, “Particle Surface” of 100 nm. Takahashi et al. is silent in an X-ray diffraction pattern, the solid electrolyte exhibits: peak A in a range of 2ꝋ = 21.6o to 22.6o; peak B in a range of 2ꝋ = 22.7o to 23.7o; and peak C in a range of 2ꝋ = 35.8o to 36.8o, the X-ray diffraction pattern being obtained by an X-ray diffractometer using CuKα1 radiation; wherein the solid electrolyte exhibits peak M in a range of 2 ꝋ = 24.2o to 26.2o in an X-ray diffraction pattern obtained by an X-ray diffractometer using CuKα1 radiation, and a ratio of IA to IM, IA/IM, is more than 0 and less than 0.03, wherein IA represents an intensity of the peak A and IM represents an intensity of the peak M (claim 2); wherein the solid electrolyte exhibits peak M in a range of 2ꝋ = 24.2o to 26.2o in an X-ray diffraction pattern obtained by an X-ray diffractometer using CuKα1 radiation, and a ratio of IB to IM, IB/IM, is more than 0 and 0.025 or less, wherein IB represents an intensity of the peak B and IM represents an intensity of the peak M (claim 3); wherein the solid electrolyte exhibits peak M in a range of 2ꝋ = 24.2o to 26.2o in an X-ray diffraction pattern obtained by an X-ray diffractometer using CuKα1 radiation, and a ratio of IC to IM, lC/IM, is more than 0 and 0.012 or less, wherein IC represents an intensity of the peak C and IM represents an intensity of the peak M (claim 4); and wherein in an X-ray diffraction pattern, the solid electrolyte exhibits: peak D in a range of 2ꝋ = 32.00 to 35.30; and peak M in a range of 2ꝋ = 24.2o to 26.2o the X-ray diffraction pattern being obtained by an X-ray diffractometer using CuKα1 radiation, and a ratio of ID to IM, ID/IM, is less than 0.21, wherein ID represents an intensity of the peak D and IM represents an intensity of the peak M (claim 5). However, as there is no clear compositional distinction between the solid electrolyte of Takahashi et al. comprises the Li, P, S, (Cl, Br), and O elements, as well as the molar ratios O/P and Cl/P and argyrodite crystal structure, and that of the claim, it would be inherent and/or expected for the solid electrolyte of Takahashi to exhibit X-ray diffraction pattern of peak A, peak B, and peak C obtained by an X-ray diffractometer using CuKα1 radiation, as well as peak W; wherein the solid electrolyte exhibits peak M in a range of 2ꝋ = 24.2o to 26.2o in an X-ray diffraction pattern obtained by an X-ray diffractometer using CuKα1 radiation, and a ratio of IB to IM, IB/IM, is more than 0 and 0.025 or less, wherein IB represents an intensity of the peak B and IM represents an intensity of the peak M; wherein the solid electrolyte exhibits peak M in a range of 2ꝋ = 24.2o to 26.2o in an X-ray diffraction pattern obtained by an X-ray diffractometer using CuKα1 radiation, and a ratio of IC to IM, lC/IM, is more than 0 and 0.012 or less, wherein Ic represents an intensity of the peak C and IM represents an intensity of the peak M; and wherein in an X-ray diffraction pattern, the solid electrolyte exhibits: peak D in a range of 2ꝋ = 32.00 to 35.30; and peak M in a range of 2ꝋ = 24.2o to 26.2o the X-ray diffraction pattern being obtained by an X-ray diffractometer using CuKα1 radiation, and a ratio of ID to IM, ID/IM, is less than 0.21, wherein ID represents an intensity of the peak D and IM represents an intensity of the peak M. MPEP 2112.01, I. With regard to claim 6, Takahashi et al. teaches the solid electrolyte mixed with an active material. See [0044]. With regard to claim 7, Takahashi et al. teach an all-state lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a solid electrolyte layer of claim 1 interposed between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer. See [0070]. 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 MILTON I CANO whose telephone number is (313)446-4937. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 6:00-3:00. 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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at 571-272-7769. 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. /MILTON I CANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit 1723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 04, 2022
Application Filed
May 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 12, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 01, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12420336
ANTI-FRETTING COATING COMPOSITION AND COATED COMPONENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 23, 2025
Patent 12417853
ENGINEERED SIC-SIC COMPOSITE AND MONOLITHIC SIC LAYERED STRUCTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 16, 2025
Patent 12418039
MEMBRANE ELECTRODE ASSEMBLY MANUFACTURING PROCESS
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 16, 2025
Patent 12410882
VACUUM ADIABATIC BODY
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 09, 2025
Patent 12397261
METHOD FOR ELECTROCHEMICAL HYDROGEN SEPARATION FROM NATURAL-GAS PIPELINES
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 26, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
55%
Grant Probability
71%
With Interview (+15.2%)
4y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 551 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month