Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/277,206

SOLID ELECTROLYTE, AND ELECTRODE MIXTURE AND BATTERY CONTAINING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 14, 2023
Examiner
OHARA, BRIAN R
Art Unit
1724
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Mitsui Mining & Smelting Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
422 granted / 533 resolved
+14.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
577
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
57.3%
+17.3% vs TC avg
§102
23.5%
-16.5% vs TC avg
§112
14.2%
-25.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 533 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
CTNF 18/277,206 CTNF 92165 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites “The solid electrolyte according to claim 1, comprising a fluoride solvent.” The issue with the claim is that the claim is a “a solid electrolyte” not “a non-aqueous electrolyte, gel type electrolyte or a hybrid type electrolyte.” Therefore, the electrolyte according to well-known terminology within the art should not comprise a solvent. Furthermore, the instant specification (Using US 2024/0145768 for citations) discloses that the fluoride solvent is used within the production of the solid electrolyte and is dried/removed during the process ([0046], [0056]) leaving the fluoride on the surface of the particle ([0046], [0056]). Therefore, the claim should be wherein the solid electrolyte is formed from a fluoride solvent or made from a fluoride solvent. Otherwise the claims more of an intermediate product . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 2020/0373612) . As to claim 1, Yamada discloses a solid electrolyte ([0007], [0008], discussed throughout) comprising a lithium (Li) element ([0008], [0023], discussed throughout), a phosphorus (P) element ([0008]-[0015], discussed throughout), a sulfur (S) element ([0007]-[0015], discussed throughout), and an X element, where X represents at least one element selected from the group consisting of a chlorine (Cl) element, a bromine (Br) element, and an iodine (I) element ([0008], [0013], [0014], discussed throughout), wherein the solid electrolyte has a peak attributed to a fluorine (F) element in surface analysis based on X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy ([0027], [0028], [0049], [0051] and discussed throughout). Note: this is a 103 type rejection from picking and choosing i.e. the solvents with the fluorine solvent ([0027], [0028]), lithium as the alkali metal ([0023]) and the required halogens ([0049]-[0051]). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to pick the instant claimed elements as a mere combing prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results i.e. solid electrolytes (see MPEP 2143 I and 2144.06 I). As to claim 2, Yamada discloses wherein, comprising a fluoride solvent ([0027], [0028], discussed throughout). As to claim 3, Yamada does not specifically state wherein, wherein the ratio (quantitative value of F1s/quantitative value of P2p) of quantitative value of F1s (atom %) and quantitative value of P2p (atom %), calculated based on X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy with the total amount of Li1s, C1s, O1s, F1s, P2p, S2p, Cl2p, and Br3d being set to 100%, is 0.01 or more and 0.34 or less. However, Yamada does disclose wherein the halogen can be more than one halogen ([0108], [0051], discussed throughout) and wherein the more than one halogen are in equal parts ([0108], discussed throughout). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to have two halogens in equal parts as a mere combing prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I). Thus, the ratios within ([0094]) show overlapping ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). As to claim 4, Yamada discloses wherein, a crystal phase of an argyrodite-type crystal structure ([0100], discussed throughout). As to claim 5, Yamada discloses an electrode material mixture comprising: the solid electrolyte according to claim 1; and an active material ([0104]-[0105], discussed throughout). As to claim 6, Yamada discloses a battery comprising: a positive electrode layer; a negative electrode layer; and a solid electrolyte layer provided between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer, wherein the battery contains the solid electrolyte according to claim 1 ([0104]-[0105], discussed throughout). Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R OHARA whose telephone number is (571)272-0728. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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. /BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724 Application/Control Number: 18/277,206 Page 2 Art Unit: 1724 Application/Control Number: 18/277,206 Page 3 Art Unit: 1724 Application/Control Number: 18/277,206 Page 4 Art Unit: 1724 Application/Control Number: 18/277,206 Page 5 Art Unit: 1724 Application/Control Number: 18/277,206 Page 6 Art Unit: 1724
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 14, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589999
LITHIUM MANGANESE IRON PHOSPHATE POSITIVE ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL AND PREPARATION METHOD, POSITIVE ELECTRODE PLATE, SECONDARY BATTERY AND ELECTRICAL APPARATUS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586805
SOLID OXIDE FUEL CELL, SOLID OXIDE FUEL CELL STACK AND MANUFACTURING METHOD OF SOLID OXIDE FUEL CELL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580275
Battery Module
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12555814
FUEL CELL UNIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12555879
CYLINDRICAL SECONDARY BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
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
79%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+9.0%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 533 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