Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/210,276

LITHIUM ION CONDUCTOR AND LITHIUM ION BATTERY

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 15, 2023
Examiner
REDDY, SATHAVARAM I
Art Unit
1785
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
46%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 46% of resolved cases
46%
Career Allow Rate
274 granted / 602 resolved
-19.5% vs TC avg
Strong +53% interview lift
Without
With
+53.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 2m
Avg Prosecution
79 currently pending
Career history
681
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
53.6%
+13.6% vs TC avg
§102
17.4%
-22.6% vs TC avg
§112
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 602 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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui et al (US 2008/0254363 A1) in view of Sun et al (CN 110137561 A). A machine translation is being used as the English translation for Sun et al (CN 110137561 A). Regarding claim 1, Matsui discloses a lithium ion conductor (ammonium salt and lithium salt in non-aqueous electrolytic solution; paragraph [0033]) comprising: a first compound (lithium salt; paragraph [0033]) and a second compound (ammonium salt; paragraph [0033]); wherein the second compound is tetrabutylammonium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (ammonium salt is tetrabutylammonium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide; paragraph [0075]) and an electrochemical energy storage device containing the non-aqueous electrolytic solution (paragraphs [0015] and [0033]). Matsui does not disclose the lithium ion conductor comprising the first compound is a complex halide indicated by LiGaX4 where X is one or more halogens. However, Sun discloses a lithium ion battery (lithium secondary battery; paragraph [0030]) comprising a positive electrode, an electrolyte layer and a negative electrode (paragraph [0030]), a first compound being a complex halide indicated by LiGaX4 where X if F, Cl, Br and I (lithium secondary battery additive having a formula LibMaXc where 0.2 ≤ b ≤ 6, 1 ≤ a ≤ 3, 1 ≤ c ≤ 9, M is selected from Ga and X is selected from Br; paragraphs [0009]-[0010]) and wherein the lithium secondary battery additive is contained in the electrolyte layer (paragraph [0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lithium ion battery of Matsui to substitute the lithium salt of Matsui for the lithium secondary battery additive having a formula LibMaXc where 0.2 ≤ b ≤ 6, 1 ≤ a ≤ 3, 1 ≤ c ≤ 9, M is selected from Ga and X is selected from Br because having the required lithium secondary battery additive provides improved rapid transport of electrode ions, increased electrode loading and thickness and compatibility with existing lithium secondary battery electrode materials (paragraph [0007] of Sun). Matsui does not disclose a lithium ion conductor wherein the ratio of the second compound to a sum of the first compound and the second compound that is more than 0 mol% and 30 mol% or less. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the ratio of ammonium salt to the total of ammonium salt and lithium salt to be more than 0 mol% and 30 mol% or less because doing so provides improved energy density and suppresses the reaction of inserting ammonium ions into the interlayers existing in the carbon material of the negative electrode (paragraph [0033]). Regarding claim 2, Matsui and Sun discloses the lithium ion conductor of claim 1 as noted above. Matsui does not disclose the lithium ion conductor comprising the complex halide including Br. However, Sun discloses a lithium ion battery (lithium secondary battery; paragraph [0030]) comprising a positive electrode, an electrolyte layer and a negative electrode (paragraph [0030]), a first compound being a complex halide indicated by LiGaX4 where X if F, Cl, Br and I (lithium secondary battery additive having a formula LibMaXc where 0.2 ≤ b ≤ 6, 1 ≤ a ≤ 3, 1 ≤ c ≤ 9, M is selected from Ga and X is selected from Br and complex halide including Br; paragraphs [0009]-[0010]) and wherein the lithium secondary battery additive is contained in the electrolyte layer (paragraph [0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lithium ion battery of Matsui to substitute the lithium salt of for the lithium secondary battery additive having a formula LibMaXc where 0.2 ≤ b ≤ 6, 1 ≤ a ≤ 3, 1 ≤ c ≤ 9, M is selected from Ga and X is selected from Br because having the required lithium secondary battery additive provides improved rapid transport of electrode ions, increased electrode loading and thickness and compatibility with existing lithium secondary battery electrode materials (paragraph [0007] of Sun). Regarding claim 3, Matsui disclose a lithium ion battery (electrochemical energy storage device; paragraph [0015]) comprising: a positive electrode (paragraph [0015]); an electrolyte layer (non-aqueous electrolytic solution in the form of a stable film; paragraphs [0015] and [0027]; and a negative electrode (paragraph [0015]) and wherein the electrolyte layer includes the lithium ion conductor according to claim 1 (ammonium salt in non-aqueous electrolytic solution of Matsui combined with lithium secondary battery additive having a formula LibMaXc where 0.2 ≤ b ≤ 6, 1 ≤ a ≤ 3, 1 ≤ c ≤ 9, M is selected from Ga and X is selected from Br). Regarding claim 5, Matsui disclose a lithium ion battery (electrochemical energy storage device; paragraph [0015]) comprising: a positive electrode (paragraph [0015]); an electrolyte layer (non-aqueous electrolytic solution in the form of a stable film; paragraphs [0015] and [0027]; and a negative electrode (paragraph [0015]) and wherein the electrolyte layer includes the lithium ion conductor according to claim 2 (ammonium salt in non-aqueous electrolytic solution of Matsui combined with lithium secondary battery additive having a formula LibMaXc where 0.2 ≤ b ≤ 6, 1 ≤ a ≤ 3, 1 ≤ c ≤ 9, M is selected from Ga and X is selected from Br). Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui et al (US 2008/0254363 A1) in view of Sun et al (CN 110137561 A) in further view of Watanabe et al (US 2020/0099104 A1). A machine translation is being used as the English translation for Sun et al (CN 110137561 A). Regarding claim 4, Matsui and Sun discloses the lithium ion battery as noted above and discloses the lithium ion battery comprising the electrolyte layer including the lithium ion conductor according to claim 2 (ammonium salt in non-aqueous electrolytic solution of Matsui combined with lithium secondary battery additive having a formula LibMaXc where 0.2 ≤ b ≤ 6, 1 ≤ a ≤ 3, 1 ≤ c ≤ 9, M is selected from Ga and X is selected from Br). Matsui and Sun does not disclose the lithium ion battery comprising the electrolyte layer comprising a sulfide solid electrolyte. However, Watanabe discloses a lithium ion battery (lithium secondary battery; paragraph [0047]) comprising the electrolyte layer comprising a sulfide solid electrolyte (paragraph [0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lithium ion battery of Matsui and Sun to include the sulfide solid electrolyte of Watanabe in the non-aqueous electrolyte solution of Matsui because having the sulfide solid electrolyte inhibits reduction in charge-discharge capacity while minimizing short circuiting (paragraph [0050] of Watanabe). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)-272-1291. 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. /SATHAVARAM I REDDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 15, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 26, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 01, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12571086
METHOD OF PRODUCING A PHOSPHATABLE PART FROM A SHEET COATED WITH AN ALUMINUM-BASED COATING AND A ZINC COATING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12534645
TAPE CASSETTE INCLUDING TAPE AND COVER FILM, AND METHOD OF CREATING LABELS WITH THE TAPE CASSETTE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12533903
COMBINATION OF THERMAL TRANSFER SHEET AND INTERMEDIATE TRANSFER MEDIUM, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING PRINTED MATERIAL USING COMBINATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12533906
PRINTING FORMULATIONS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12509606
PRETREATMENT LIQUID FOR IMPERMEABLE BASE MATERIAL, INK SET, BASE MATERIAL FOR IMAGE RECORDING, METHOD OF PRODUCING BASE MATERIAL FOR IMAGE RECORDING, IMAGE RECORDED MATERIAL, AND IMAGE RECORDING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
46%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+53.1%)
4y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 602 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