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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 06/22/26, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are amended, and claim(s) 2–5 and 8 is/are canceled; no new matter is entered. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 03/27/26 has/have been maintained and altered as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, as set forth below.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 6 each recites a “half value width”. Such will be interpreted as “the distance between two points having an intensity that is half of the maximum intensity of a peak”, as defined in ¶ 0013, and is understood as the full width at half maximum (FWHM).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (WO 2021198183 A1, from 06/20/25 PTO-892, with EFD 03/20/20) (Zhou).
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 7, Zhou discloses a battery (e.g., p. 37, lines 20–23) comprising a positive electrode (cathode, e.g., p. 37, line 20); a negative electrode (anode, e.g., p. 37, line 23); and an electrolyte layer disposed between the positive and negative electrode electrodes (iodosulfide solid electrolyte separator, e.g., p. 37, line 23), the positive electrode containing a solid electrolyte material comprising Li, Sc, and Cl, which is represented by composition formula (1), wherein a = b = 1 (e.g., Li2Sc2/3Cl4, which is equivalent to Li3ScCl6, p. 37, line 20) and, thus, satisfying the two mathematical expressions of 0.9 ≤ a ≤ 1 and 0.9 ≤ b ≤ 1.1,
wherein in an X-ray diffraction pattern of the solid electrolyte material obtained using Cu-Kα rays, there are peaks at ~ 30° and 35° 2θ, which satisfies at least two peaks in a diffraction angle 2θ range of 27° or more and 36° or less (e.g., Li2Sc2/3Cl4’s highest peak in annot. fig. 1a below); and a peak with the highest intensity within the diffraction angle 2θ range of 27° or more and 36° or less is at a diffraction angle 2θ of ~ 30° or slightly below (Id.), which appears to fall within the recited 29.51–29.85° (compare to substantially similar peak position in instant fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
442
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Assuming, arguendo, that Zhou’s peak failed to fall within claim 1’s range, ~ 30° or slightly below is so close to the instant 29.51–29.85° that the skilled artisan would have expected the prior art’s material to perform substantially similarly to the instant material, absent demonstrated criticality (MPEP 2144.05 (I)), particularly in light of Zhou’s rendering obvious the recited solid electrolyte (see below for further explanation), as well as a substantially similar preparation method (mixing lithium-halide and transition-metal-halide precursors and heating at 300–700°C in inert atmosphere, bottom of p. 12/top of p. 13, bottom of p. 17, and/top of p. 18, and examples on p. 32, lines 13–18) compared to the instant specification (e.g., ¶ 0086; see MPEP 2112.01 (I)). Further, it is unclear that there is criticality to this range because instant Table 1’s examples outside this range vary multiple parameters simultaneously (e.g., composition and half-value width), making it indeterminable whether the poorer performance is isolatable to being outside this range. Moreover, Zhou never attributes inferior performance to values outside this range. Thus, the instant range appears merely an obvious variant of Zhou’s.
Zhou further discloses that the highest-intensity peak has a half value width of seemingly marginally greater than 0.1° (note extremely narrow half-width below (FWHM) above and compare to substantially similarly narrow peak in instant fig. 4), which, even if not falling within the instant ≤ 0.18°—or, specifically, 0.15–0.18° (claim 6)—appears to at least be extremely close to each range such that the skilled artisan would have again expected substantially similar performance from the prior art’s material (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Specifically, it is not immediately clear that there is criticality to either range because, as mentioned above, instant Table 1’s “comparative” examples (e.g., Exs. 1–5 and 9) vary multiple parameters simultaneously and/or include compositions incommensurate with formula (1), and, as further established below, it is unclear that the improved conductivity is unexpected from Zhou. Thus, absent additional evidence or explanation of criticality, each range again appears obvious over Zhou.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the half-value width ≤ 0.18°, in combination with the material represented by formula (1), is critical for ion conductivity. Examiner first respectfully submits that the arguments regarding the comparative examples with compositions outside formula (1) are moot because Zhou already satisfies formula (1). Turning to the half-value width, Examiner respectfully reiterates that Applicant’s cited “comparative” examples (e.g., Exs. 1–5 and 9) vary multiple parameters simultaneously and/or include compositions outside formula (1), so it is unclear that criticality is solely attributable to the half-value width.
Examiner emphasizes this point because MPEP 716.02(e) requires unexpected results to compare to the closest prior art. Here, because Zhou satisfies formula (1), criticality demonstrations would seemingly need to be isolated to the half-value width. Thus, absent additional evidence or explanation of the half-value width’s criticality, this argument is unpersuasive.
Additionally, it is unclear that the half-value width is critical in producing unexpectedly higher ion conductivity. Specifically, Zhou’s Li2Sc2/3Cl4—with the substantially similar peaks and half-value width—exhibited an ion conductivity of 1.5 x 10-3 S/cm (Table 1), which is higher than all of Applicant’s best examples; i.e., higher ion conductivity appears expected from employing Li2Sc2/3Cl4. As criticality demonstrations must show unexpected results (see, e.g., MPEP 716.02(c)(II) and 716.02(d)), this argument is further unpersuasive.
Applicant finally again argues that Zhou fails to disclose a composition of formula (1), but the arguments are in line with the prior amendment, which required 0.3 ≤ a ≤ 0.9 and 0.7 ≤ b ≤ 1.2 rather than the new 0.9 ≤ a ≤ 1 and 0.9 ≤ b ≤ 1.1, which Zhou meets through Li2Sc2/3Cl4, i.e., Li3ScCl6. Thus, this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
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 JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST 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 on 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights