DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 2026-09-08, the following has occurred: Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 1-11 are pending and are examined herein. This is a Final Rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 appears to claim a broader range for X/(P+M) than the amended claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terai (US 2019/0140313 to Terai et al.).
Regarding Claims 1 and 4, Terai teaches:
a solid electrolyte comprising Li, P, S, one or more halogens X, and optionally M, where M can be Si, Ge, Sn, Pb, B, Al, Ga, As, Sb, and Bi (abstract, ¶ 0054-0056)
according to the formula: Lia(P1-αMα)SbXc wherein α can vary from 0 to 0.3
Examples 40-44 where X/(P+M) is 1.80 t to 1.90 (Table 7)
Examples 40-44 wherein S/(P+M) is 4.1-4.2 (Table 7)
the solid electrolyte having an argyrodite phase (¶ 0218)
Terai does not explicitly teach that examples 40-44 have the M substituted for P, as described in ¶ 0054-0056, but Terai does teach that such M elements can be substituted for P, such that it would have been obvious to do so from 0 to 0.3 for M, for a ratio M/P of 0 to 0.42. Kato, for example, teaches such substitutions of M elements for P in a similar solid electrolyte up to 0.4 (¶ 0034-0035, Table 2). 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 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select any portion of the disclosed ranges of Terai (in view of Kato), including the claimed ratio ranges.
Regarding Claims 2-3, Terai teaches:
substantially similar chemical compositions, with M substituted for P, wherein the solid electrolyte shows argyrodite peaks (¶ 0054-0056, 0218, Table 7)
The instant specification indicates that the claimed measurement ratios indicate the predominance of argyrodite phase in the composition. Given that Terai (and Kato) teach substantially similar compositions, the M-substituted compositions rendered obvious would be expected to display the claimed values in XRD analysis, absent evidence that there is a critical positive structural difference between the presently claimed material and what is rendered obvious in view of the prior art. See also previously cited Minafra, Nazar, and Zhu for evidence of ordinary skill in the art (cited in the Non-Final Rejection of 2026-03-05).
Regarding Claim 5, Terai teaches:
w of 5.1, y of 4.1, and z of 1.8 (Table 7)
substitution of P by M according to Lia(P1-αMα)SbXc wherein α can vary from 0 to 0.3
Regarding Claims 6-7, Terai teaches:
bromine and chlorine (Table 7)
Regarding Claim 8, Terai teaches:
sulfur less than 40 mol% (Table 7)
Regarding Claims 9-11, Terai teaches:
a battery with electrode material having the solid electrolyte (¶ 0229-0232)
Response to Arguments
In response to the claim amendments, the rejections have been amended to rely on Terai.
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 Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights