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. Examiner’s Comments The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the references as applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp . Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12482854 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because this reference discloses encompassing E, G, and D components wherein the amount of each is either express or subject to routine optimization within the knowledge of a skilled artisan. With regards to the claimed X component, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner , 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) In the instant case, the difference between X with a concentration of 0.00000000001 and 0 does not appear confer patentability to the claims in the absence of a showing of critically associated with the claimed halide concentration. With regards to the claimed moisture content in a housing space, it is known in the battery art that it is desirable to have moisture content as low as possible in a battery to prevent corrosion. Thus, optimization of moisture content would have been obvious in order to prevent corrosion. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch , 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12347825. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because this reference discloses encompassing E, G, and D components wherein the amount of each is either express or subject to routine optimization within the knowledge of a skilled artisan. With regards to the claimed X component, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner , 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) In the instant case, the difference between X with a concentration of 0.00000000001 and 0 does not appear confer patentability to the claims in the absence of a showing of critically associated with the claimed halide concentration. With regards to the claimed moisture content in a housing space, it is known in the battery art that it is desirable to have moisture content as low as possible in a battery to prevent corrosion. Thus, optimization of moisture content would have been obvious in order to prevent corrosion. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch , 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Claims 1 -3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/846,057 (PGPUB 2025/0183360). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because this reference discloses encompassing E , G , D, and X components wherein the amount of each is either express or subject to routine optimization within the knowledge of a skilled artisan. With regards to the claimed moisture content in a housing space, it is known in the battery art that it is desirable to have moisture content as low as possible in a battery to prevent corrosion. Thus, optimization of moisture content would have been obvious in order to prevent corrosion. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch , 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/716,716 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because this reference discloses encompassing E , G , D, and X components wherein the amount of each is either express or subject to routine optimization within the knowledge of a skilled artisan. With regards to the claimed moisture content in a housing space, it is known in the battery art that it is desirable to have moisture content as low as possible in a battery to prevent corrosion. Thus, optimization of moisture content would have been obvious in order to prevent corrosion. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch , 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/ 272,458 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because this reference discloses encompassing E , G , D, and X components wherein the amount of each is either express or subject to routine optimization within the knowledge of a skilled artisan. With regards to the claimed moisture content in a housing space, it is known in the battery art that it is desirable to have moisture content as low as possible in a battery to prevent corrosion. Thus, optimization of moisture content would have been obvious in order to prevent corrosion. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch , 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/272,504. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because this reference discloses encompassing E, G, and D components wherein the amount of each is either express or subject to routine optimization within the knowledge of a skilled artisan. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. With regards to the claimed X component, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner , 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) In the instant case, the difference between X with a concentration of 0.00000000001 and 0 does not appear confer patentability to the claims in the absence of a showing of critically associated with the claimed halide concentration. With regards to the claimed moisture content in a housing space, it is known in the battery art that it is desirable to have moisture content as low as possible in a battery to prevent corrosion. Thus, optimization of moisture content would have been obvious in order to prevent corrosion. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch , 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Claims 1 -3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/ 011,684 (Notice of Allowance mailed 12/10/25). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because this reference discloses encompassing E , G , D, and X components wherein the amount of each is either express or subject to routine optimization within the knowledge of a skilled artisan. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. With regards to the claimed moisture content in a housing space, it is known in the battery art that it is desirable to have moisture content as low as possible in a battery to prevent corrosion. Thus, optimization of moisture content would have been obvious in order to prevent corrosion. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch , 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1 and 3 recites “Li 3+a-e E 1-b G b D c X d-e ”, wherein components E and G shares the same elements, specifically Al, Sc, Y, Zr, and Hf. Given the expression E 1-b G b , the expression contradicts each other if components E and G corresponds to the same elements and especially if b=0. Thereby, this renders the claim indefinite. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 111900462 A in view of Nozue et al. (US 2019/0190057) . Regarding claim s 1 -3 , CN ‘462 discloses a battery and a method of making thereof comprising a battery element including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a solid electrolyte layer between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (claim 9), at least one of the positive electrode, the negative electrode, and the solid electrolyte layer includes a solid electrolyte of Li a MX 3+a y X’ y , w herein a is more than or equal to 1.5 and less than or equal to 4.5, Y is more than 0 and less than or equal to 3.0, M is RE , X is one of Cl, Br and I, X 'is a halogen doping element and is at least one of F, Cl and Br, and X' is different from X (Abstract). Specifically, CN ‘462 discloses Li 3 YCl 5 . 7 F 0. 3 (Example 1) and Li 3 YBr 5 . 7 F 0.3 (Example 2), which satisfy claimed Formula (1). Although CN ‘462 discloses a battery as presently claimed, CN ‘462 fails to disclose that the battery further comprises an exterior body, a housing space between the battery element and the exterior body has a moisture content of less than 1100 ppmv or less than 600 ppmv , and housing step has a dew point of lower than -20C and higher than -90C as presently claimed. Nozue discloses a battery comprising an exterior bod y, wherein a moisture content in a housing space between the battery element and the exterior body is low as possible (moisture content is removed and humidity is absorbed (Abstract, [0039])), and assembling the housing is under a dew point of -30°C or lower [0059]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CN ‘462’s battery to be place in a container with little to no moisture content as claimed and assembled in a housing step with a dew point of -30 ° C, as suggested by Nozue , in order to improve the battery lifetime [0010]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LINDA N CHAU whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5835 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9AM-5PM EST 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. Linda Chau /L.N.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1785 /Holly Rickman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785