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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made to applicant’s amendment of claim 1 filed on 03/05/2026. Accordingly, claims 1-6 remain pending and are claims addressed and examined below.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 03/05/2026 has been approved. Accordingly, the double patenting rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 12/11/2025 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (US 20200235420 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Yushin teaches a Lithium-metal-oxy-halide solid electrolyte that that reads on the solid electrolyte comprising Li; M (metal); O: and X (halide) (¶ 0085). Yushin teaches that M (metal) may include Ta (¶ 0085), and the X (halide) may comprise Cl or other halogens such as F or Br (¶ 0085). Although Yushin teaches examples of the solid electrolyte that may include sulfur, Yushin also teaches examples that do not include sulfur and therefore read on the solid electrolyte material being free of sulfur (¶ 0085).
Yushin does not specifically teach the solid electrolyte material has, in an X-ray diffraction pattern obtained by X-ray diffraction measurement using a Cu-Ka ray, a first peak positioned within a range of a diffraction angle 20 from 13.490 to 13.590 and a second peak positioned within a range of the diffraction angle 20 from 14.820 to 14.920, and an intensity ratio of the first peak to the second peak is 0.50 or more and 4.50 or less.
However, the electrolyte Yushin teaches comprises all the elements of the claimed electrolyte. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the solid electrolyte taught by Yushin would inherently have, in an X-ray diffraction pattern obtained X-ray diffraction measurement using a Cu-Ka ray, a first peak positioned within a range of a diffraction angle 2Θ from 13.490° to 13.590° and a second peak positioned within a range of the diffraction angle 2Θ from 14.82° to 14.92°, and an intensity ratio of the first peak to the second peak is 0.50 or more and 4.50 or less, since a material and its properties are inseparable. NOTE: Where … the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under 35 USC § 102, on “prima facie obviousness” under 35 USC § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. In re Best, 562 F2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-4 (CCPA 1977).
With regards to claim 2, Yushin teaches the solid electrolyte material according to claim 1, wherein the X includes Cl (¶ 0085).
With regards to claim 3, Yushin teaches the solid electrolyte material according to claim 1, wherein the M (metal) includes Ta (¶ 0085).
With regards to claim 5, Yushin teaches the solid electrolyte material according to claim 1. Yushin does not specifically teach the solid electrolyte material wherein the intensity ratio is 0.70 or more and 1.72 or less. However, as discussed earlier, the electrolyte Yushin teaches comprises all the elements of the claimed electrolyte. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the solid electrolyte taught by Yushin would inherently have, in an X-ray diffraction pattern obtained X-ray diffraction measurement using a Cu-Ka ray, a first peak positioned within a range of a diffraction angle 2Θ from 13.490° to 13.590° and a second peak positioned within a range of the diffraction angle 2Θ from 14.82° to 14.92°, and an intensity ratio of the first peak to the second peak is 0.50 or more and 4.50 or less, since a material and its properties are inseparable. NOTE: Where … the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under 35 USC § 102, on “prima facie obviousness” under 35 USC § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. In re Best, 562 F2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-4 (CCPA 1977).
With regards to claim 6, Yushin teaches battery comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and an electrolyte layer disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (¶ 0015). Yushin teaches that at least the positive electrode includes the solid electrolyte material according to claim 1 (¶ 0015).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (US 20200235420 A1) as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Kajdos et al. (US 20170170515 A1).
With regards to claim 4, Yushin teaches the solid electrolyte material according to claim 1. Yushin does not teach the solid electrolyte material wherein a molar ratio of the Li to the M is 1.2 or more and 1.4 or less.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kajdos teaches a solid electrolyte material comprising Li, M, O, and X wherein the M is at least one selected from the group consisting of Nb and Ta, the X is at least one selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br, and I (¶ 0014). Kajdos goes on to teach an example of a solid electrolyte material wherein a molar ratio of the Li to the M is 1.2 or more and 1.4 or less (¶ 0014 and ¶ 0043).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to try a ratio of Li to M within the broader range taught by Kajdos through routine experimentation. Applying this ratio to the solid electrolyte taught by Yushin would predictably yield an effective electrolyte that has exhibits good ionic conductivity.
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 HUNSUYADOR YUSIF whose telephone number is (571)272-4531. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 5 pm (M-R).
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, Galen H Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/HUNSUYADOR MUGEESATU YUSIF/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743