DETAILED ACTION Notice to Applicant Claims 1-11 are pending and are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 4-6, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato (US 2015/0333367 to Kato et al.) . Regarding Claim 1 , Kato teaches: a sulfide solid electrolyte material comprising Li, S, P, Si, and a halogen such as Cl or Br (¶ 0034) that includes an argyrodite phase (¶ 0035) an example of 1.5LiCl·Li 3.4 Si 0.4 P 0.6 S 4 (Table 2), such that S/(P+ M)= 4 and M/P=0.67 Regarding Claim 4 , Kato teaches: an example of 1.5LiCl·Li 3.4 Si 0.4 P 0.6 S 4 (Table 2) , such that X/(P+ M)= 1.5 Regarding Claim 5 , Kato teaches: an example of 1.5LiCl·Li 3.4 Si 0.4 P 0.6 S 4 (Table 2) , which can be rewritten as Li 4.9 S Si 0.4 P 0.6 S 4 Cl 1.5 Regarding Claim 6 , Kato teaches: wherein Br can substitute for Cl (¶ 0044, claim 1, etc.) Regarding Claim 8 , Kato teaches: an example of 1.5LiCl·Li 3.4 Si 0.4 P 0.6 S 4 (Table 2), which can be rewritten as Li 4.9 S Si 0.4 P 0.6 S 4 Cl 1.5 , with S <40 mol% Regarding Claim 9 , Kato teaches: electrode material with the solid electrolyte (¶ 0060) Regarding Claim 10 , Kato teaches: a solid electrolyte layer of the solid electrolyte (¶ 0066, etc.) Regarding Claim 11 , Kato teaches: a battery comprising cathode, anode, and solid electrolyte, of the claimed composition (¶ 0071) 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. 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 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minafra ( Minafra et al. “Effect of Si substitution on the structural and transport properties of superionic Li-argyrodites.” J. Mater. Chem. A , 2018, 6, 645-651) in view of Nazar (US 2021/0323824 to Nazar et al.) and Miyashita (US 2016/0156064 to Miyashita et al.) . Regarding Claim 1 , Minafra teaches: argyrodite sulfide solid electrolytes of formula Li 6+x P 1-x Si x S 5 X, where X is a halogen like Br and Cl, and x can vary up to 0.5, such that M/P varies along the range 0-1 (abstract, Fig. 3, p. 648) Minafra does not explicitly teach that the halogen subscript can vary above 1, and substitute for sulfur , and therefore does not teach 3.5 < S/(P+M) < 4.2. Nazar, however, from the same field of invention, teaches an argyrodite sulfide electrolyte of formula Li a PS b O c X d Y e , where b is from 3.0 to 5.4, X is a halogen like Cl, and Y is a different halogen, such as Br, and d+e can vary up to 1.8 (¶ 0011-0021) with halogen target stoichiometries up to 2 (table 1) overlapping the instantly claimed sulfur to phosphorus (with substituted Si) ratio. Miyashita similarly teaches substituting Br and/or Cl for sulfur along a similar range (abstract). See also Zhu (US 2020/0067131) which teaches a Li 5 PS 4 Cl 2 derived from arygyrodite sulfides for evidence of ordinary skill in the art regarding subscripts in sulfur-lean and halogen-rich electrolyte materials. 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 substitute Br and Cl at higher mol%, up to 1.8 or even 2, with lower S, between 3.0-4.0, in the silicon-containing argyrodites of Minafra with the motivation to improve conductivity and crystal phase stability, as suggested by Nazar and Miyashita. Regarding Claims 2-3 , Minafra does note explicitly teach: the claimed ratios in an XRD The instant specification indicates that these ratios indicate the predominance of argyrodite phase in the composition. Given that Minafra is directed towards majority argyrodite sulfides, and that the proposed substitution of halogen anions for sulfur in view of Nazar and Miyashita only pushes the composition closer to the compositional ranges disclosed in the instant invention, the proposed modification of Minafra in view of Nazar and Miyashita 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. Regarding Claim 7 , Minafra teaches: Br Kato, cited above, similarly teaches only examples with Cl. But the prior art of record as a whole teaches Br and Cl as substitutable equivalents that can both be used in the sulfides disclosed therein. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. 398 (2007). It would have been obvious to use Cl and Br, as used in some of the examples of Nazar, absent evidence of unexpected results for a particularly claimed composition over what is rendered obvious in the prior art. See also Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Patel et al. “Tunable Lithium-Ion Transport in Mixed-Halide Argyrodites Li 6-x PS 5-x ClBr x : An Unusual Compositional Space.” Chem. Mater. 2021, 33, 1435-1443. Feng et al. “Enhanced ion conduction by enforcing structural disorder in Li-deficient argyrodites Li 6-x PS 5-x Cl 1+x .” Energy Storage Materials 30 (2020) 67-73. Yu et al. “Enabling ultrafast ionic conductivity in Br-based lithium argyrodite electrolytes for solid-state batteries with different anodes.” Energy Storage Materials 30 (2020) 238-249. 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