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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3 February 2026 has been entered.
Status of claims
Claim 1 is amended. Claim 4 is cancelled. Claims 5-6 stand withdrawn. Claims 1-3, as filed 3 February 2026, are examined herein. No new matter is included.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the mental process grouping is not without limits. Specifically, Applicant argues that “Measuring an actual lithium-ion conductivity” and “measuring a degree of crystallinity Xc” cannot be practically performed in the human mind and therefore they should be considered as additional elements in the context of the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis.
This is not persuasive. Examiner notes that the measuring and synthesis steps are additional elements. The abstract idea as identified in the instant rejection is a mathematical concept type abstract idea and/or a mental process. The invention appears to be use of a specific computation process to obtain a value of σ (predicted) using Equation 1. The measurement process for conductivity and crystallinity are only nominally recited. The step of “synthesizing the solid electrolytes” is only nominally recited. In Electric Power Group, the claimed invention was directed to an unpatentable abstract idea because it merely involved "a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results. The “measuring after synthesizing…” is equivalent to information gathering. With respect to Step2a Prong Two, Examiner notes that there is no claimed improvement to the additional elements of “measuring an actual lithium-ion conductivity”, “measuring a degree of crystallinity Xc” or “synthesizing the solid electrolytes”. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application.
Further regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that M.P.E.P. § 2196.04(d) further requires the Office to evaluate the claim as a whole in Step 2A, Prong Two to determine whether it integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. “an important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome.”
This is not persuasive. Examiner notes that Applicant appears to be stating that the steps of claim 1 will create an improved solid electrolyte. This is not persuasive. The result of the steps of instant claim 1 is a value of σpre -and a graph similar to FIG. 1 of the instant invention. The steps do not recite any specific use of that value and of the graph similar to FIG. 1, therefore the do not create an improved solid electrolyte.
Said differently, the claims recite steps (“measuring an actual lithium-ion conductivity”, “measuring a degree of crystallinity Xc” and “synthesizing the solid electrolytes”) and also the use of an equation. The alleged improvement to existing technology is in the abstract idea. There in no nexus between the measuring and synthesis steps and the computational science.
Examiner notes that if claim 1 is amended to add a step of “use the result of the regression analysis to select formulations to synthesize further solid electrolytes”, this will not integrate the abstract idea.
Further regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant appears to argue that the instant invention solves the problem ([0006-0008]) of the need for many time-consuming measurements of different compositions to obtain a solid electrolyte having high lithium ion conductivity by recognizing that predicted lithium ion conductivity and experimentally measured lithium ion conductivity are different due to various natural phenomena. Notably, while existing methodologies for predicting lithium-ion conductivity assumes the solid electrolyte is an ideal perfect crystal, the crystallinity of actually manufacture solid electrolytes varies depending upon the manufacturing method and conditions.
Examiner respectfully notes that the instant claims appear to be an attempt to patent Equation I. According to 35 USC 101, the following are patent eligible: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. While the overall claim 1 is a process claim, the process steps of synthesizing solid electrolytes, measuring ion conductivity, and measuring crystallinity are routine and conventional steps (as admitted in the specification at [0051] and [0058]) carried out to provide an input for Equation I, therefore they are mere data gathering, recited at a high level of generality. Equation I is not patent eligible, and the use of Equation I as claimed in the instant claim 1 is also not patent eligible.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “method of a predicting…” this should be corrected to “a method of predicting…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for at least the following reasons:
Claim interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
Claim 1 includes the following limitations:
[step a] determining, by a processor using computational science a calculated value σ (calc) of a lithium ion conductivity for each of a plurality of solid electrolytes, wherein the computational science comprises Ab initio molecular dynamics (AIMD) simulation which combines density functional theory (DFT) and molecular dynamics (MD);
[step b] measuring an actual lithium ion conductivity σ (exp) of each of the plurality of solid electrolytes after synthesizing the solid electrolytes;
[step c] measuring an actual lithium ion conductivity σ (exp) of each of the plurality of solid electrolytes after synthesizing the solid electrolytes;
[step d] obtaining by the processor for each of the solid electrolytes, a predicted value σpre of the lithium-ion conductivity of the solid electrolyte from the calculated value σcalc using Equation 1: σ (pre) = σ (calc). Xc ^7.14 wherein, in Equation I, Xc represents the crystallinity of the solid electrolyte, and
[step e] performing regression analysis on the crystallinities Xc, the actual lithium ion conductivities σ (exp), and the calculated values σ (calc) of each of the plurality of solid electrolytes.
The preamble (A method of a predicting lithium-ion conductivity value of a solid electrolyte) here does not positively add limitations to the claimed system, or further modify limitations recited in the body of the claim, and thus does not limit the claim. Instead, it indicates an intended use of the calculated value.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a method. Thus, the claim is to process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
(Step 1: YES, the claims belong to a statutory invention category.)
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. There are no nature- based product limitations in this claim (calculation of lithium ion conductivity is not a nature-based product), and thus the markedly different characteristics analysis is not performed. However, the claim still must be reviewed to determine if it recites any other type of judicial exception.
The claim recites a method of a predicting lithium-ion conductivity value of a solid electrolyte, comprising:
[step a] determining, by a processor using computational science a calculated value σ (calc) of a lithium ion conductivity for each of a plurality of solid electrolytes, wherein the computational science comprises Ab initio molecular dynamics (AIMD) simulation which combines density functional theory (DFT) and molecular dynamics (MD);
[step b] measuring an actual lithium ion conductivity σ (exp) of each of the plurality of solid electrolytes after synthesizing the solid electrolytes;
[step c] measuring an actual lithium ion conductivity σ (exp) of each of the plurality of solid electrolytes after synthesizing the solid electrolytes;
[step d] obtaining by the processor for each of the solid electrolytes, a predicted value σpre of the lithium-ion conductivity of the solid electrolyte from the calculated value σcalc using Equation 1: σ (pre) = σ (calc). Xc ^7.14 wherein, in Equation I, Xc represents the crystallinity of the solid electrolyte, and
[step e] performing regression analysis on the crystallinities Xc, the actual lithium ion conductivities σ (exp), and the calculated values σ (calc) of each of the plurality of solid electrolytes.
Steps [a], [d], and [e] are calculations, and therefore are a “mathematical concept-type abstract idea” or ideas. Alternatively, the steps are acts that can be practically performed in the human mind (noting that “performed in the human mind” includes the use of pen, paper and a pocket calculator), and therefore can also recite a concept that falls into the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. There are no bright lines between a mathematical concept type abstract idea and “performed in the human mind.”. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.04(I).
For purposes of further discussion, steps [a], [d], and [e] above are considered a single abstract idea.
(Step 2A prong 1- YES, the claims recite an abstract idea, mathematical concept and/or mental process.)
Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
The following are identified as additional elements:
[step b] “measuring …” [step c] “measuring ….”
[step b and step c] “synthesizing solid electrolytes.”
Referring to MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP § 2106.05(g), Examiner notes that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical idea. (emphasis added) “Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing …”
[Step b] and [step c] require synthesis of electrolyte samples and measurement of properties. These are input (data gathering) into Equation 1 and the result of Equation 1 is input into the regression process. The “improvement”, if any, of claim 1 is in the abstract idea steps [a], [d] and [e]. The claim as a whole appears to be a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea of [step a], [step d], and [step e] into patentable subject matter. The additional elements, either individually or in combination, represent data gathering and do not integrate the abstract idea.
(Step 2A prong 2- NO, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a particular practical application.)
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to
significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05.
The following are identified as additional elements:
[step b] “measuring …”, “synthesizing solid electrolytes.”
[step c] “measuring ….”, “synthesizing solid electrolytes.”
Referring to MPEP 2106.05(g), (emphasis added) “Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing …” [Step a] and [step b] are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known in the industry. Evidence is provided by the instant specification at [0058] (emphasis added) “Methods for measuring the lithium-ion conductivity σ(exp) and the crystallinity χc are not particularly limited. Such physical properties may be measured by any method widely used in the technical field to which the present invention pertains.” The specification at [0051] indicates that the claimed process is not linked to a specific synthesis method: (emphasis added) “Since differences in the crystallinity of the solid electrolyte occurred depending on the synthesis method, it may be preferable to synthesize the solid electrolytes using various methods.”
The identified additional elements, either individually or in combination, are pre-solution activity, equivalent to mere data gathering. Therefore, they do not integrate the abstract idea.
(Step 2B: No. The claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea.)
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims:
At claim 2, “the solid electrolyte is represented by Chemical Formula 1, [Chemical Formula 1] Li6-aPS5-aXa where 1<a<2, and X is a halogen selected from as chlorine (Cl), bromine (Br), and iodine (I).” This limitation merely imposes a limitation on the type of data used in claim 1, and therefore does not change the above determination with respect to eligibility.
At claim 3, “the method according to claim 1, wherein the crystallinity is in a range of about 0.7 to 0.8.” This merely imposes a limitation on the type of data used in claim 1, and therefore does not change the above determination with respect to eligibility.
Citation of Relevant Prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon for a prior art rejection at this time is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and to instant claims 1-3.
The most relevant reference is Miyashita (US 20170352916 A1). Miyashita teaches [0093] a sulfide -based solid electrolyte having a cubic argyrodite-type crystal structure represented by (FIG. 4 and [0029-0038]) Li7-x+y PS6 -xCl x+y, and at (Table 1 and [0089]) measurement of ion conductivity. (obtaining a calculated value acalc by calculating a lithium ion conductivity of a solid electrolyte.) Examiner notes that calculation of ion conductivity is a step in measurement of ion conductivity. At [0043-0044] and [0048] Miyashita contemplates that presence of compound A (the cubic argyrodite-type crystal structure) is associated with excellent ionic conductivity. Examiner notes that Miyashita contemplates the significance of the proportion of compound A for excellent ion conductivity, not the significance of total crystallinity. Miyashita discloses (Table 2) that the solid electrolyte compound can contain other crystalline phases (as detected by XRD) and can contain amorphous phases. Therefore, Miyashita does not explicitly disclose a relationship between total crystallinity and ion conductivity.
Utsuno (US 201901403174 A1) similarly teaches a sulfide solid electrolyte and teaches (Table 11) a relationship between diffraction peak areas and ionic conductivity. Utsuno relates this ratio to the amount of halogen occupying a site of the argyrodite crystal structure but does not explicitly identify total crystallinity as a relevant factor.
Miyashita and Utsuno are both silent on a method of a predicting lithium-ion conductivity value of a solid electrolyte, comprising obtaining a predicted value apre of the lithium ion conductivity of the solid electrolyte from the calculated value acalc using Equation 1: σpre = acalcXc7.14, in Equation 1, Xc represents the crystallinity of the solid electrolyte.
Ekern (US 5609973) teaches (col. 32 lines 28-67, FIG. 24) the use of polynomial regression to fit materials property data to an exponential curve, specifically to predict how variation in iron content impacts capacity of a battery cell. A person of ordinary skill would understand that the Ekern’s process of predicting the relationship between variation in iron content impacts capacity of a battery cell can be generalized to other battery materials, for example predicting lithium-ion conductivity with respect to crystallinity. A person of ordinary skill in the art might have been motivated to use Ekern’s statistical process with Miyashita’s teaching of a relationship between electrolyte compound A and lithium-ion conductance, with a reasonable expectation of successfully identifying that a mathematical relationship exists and predicting values of lithium-ion conductivity.
However, there is no teaching or suggestion in the cited references to specifically use an exponential curve fit to predict lithium-ion conductivity, and there is no teaching or suggestion that the power of that exponential equation is 7.14.
Therefore, the prior are fails to teach or suggest a method of a predicting lithium-ion conductivity value of a solid electrolyte, comprising obtaining a predicted value apre of the lithium-ion conductivity of the solid electrolyte from the calculated value acalc using Equation 1: σpre = acalcXc7.14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 7/2/2026
Prosecution Insights