Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/362,962

SOLID ELECTROLYTE MATERIAL AND BATTERY USING SAME

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Aug 01, 2023
Examiner
GODO, OLATUNJI A
Art Unit
1752
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
950 granted / 1106 resolved
+20.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
1136
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
45.7%
+5.7% vs TC avg
§102
32.1%
-7.9% vs TC avg
§112
16.4%
-23.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1106 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 1. Claims 1, 4, 10-12, 21, 22, 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (US20220255125, PCT Filed 7/20/20) 2. Regarding claims 1, 4, 21, 22, Suzuki teaches solid electrolyte material consisting essentially of Li, Yb, M, and X, wherein M is at least one selected from the group consisting of Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Zn, Y, Tb, Gd, Sm, In, Zr, and Hf, and X is at least one selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br, and I (Table 8, Example 52, Solid electrolyte: Li2.1Zr0.9 Yb0.1Cl5.9) 3. Regarding claims 10-12, X-ray diffractometry of the solid electrolyte is inherently taught by Suzuki because "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. (MPEP 2112.01) Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). (MPEP 2112.01) 4. Regarding claim 40, Suzuki teaches battery comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and an electrolyte layer disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of the positive electrode, the negative electrode, and the electrolyte layer contains the solid electrolyte material (A solid electrolyte battery including a solid electrolyte layer, a positive electrode and a negative electrode [0043]) 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 of this title, 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. 5. Claims 2, 3, 6-9, 13-20, 23-39, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US20220255125, PCT Filed 7/20/20) 6. Regarding claims 2, 3, 6-9, 13-20, 23-29, 38, 39, the complete discussion of Suzuki as applied to claim 1 is incorporated herein. However, they are silent about primary teachings of claims 2, 3, 6-9, 13-20, 23-29, 38, 39. 7. Regarding claims 2 and 3, Suzuki teaches solid electrolyte including a compound represented by the following formula (1) A2+aE1−b+aGbXd (1), A is Li, E is at least Mg and Yb, X is at least one selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br and I [0019-0020] Regarding claims 6-9, 16-18, 23-27, Suzuki’s Li2.1Zr0.9 Yb0.1Cl5.9 is obvious over the formula (1) when x = 0 and y = 0 in formula (1). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). 8. Regarding claims 13-15, Suzuki teaches solid electrolyte including a compound represented by the following formula (1) A2+aE1−b+aGbXd (1), A is Li, E is at least Y and Yb, and X is at least one selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br and I [0019-0020] 9. Regarding claims 19, 20,28, 29, 38, 39, X-ray diffractometry of the solid electrolyte is obviously taught by Suzuki because "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. (MPEP 2112.01) Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). (MPEP 2112.01) 10. Regarding claims 30-37, Suzuki teaches solid electrolyte including a compound represented by the following formula (1) A2+aE1−b+aGbXd (1), A is Li, E is at least Y, Mg and Yb, and X is at least one selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br and I [0019-0020] a is −2b in a case where G is a hexavalent element, a is −b in a case where G is a pentavalent element, a is zero in a case where G is a tetravalent element or G is not contained, a is b in a case where G is a trivalent element, a is 2b in a case where G is a divalent element and a is 3b in a case where G is a monovalent element. 0≤b≤0.5, −0.3≤α≤0.3 and 5.0<d<6.0.) [0020] 11. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki’s teachings for the benefit of providing a solid electrolyte having a high ionic conductivity [0044]. 12. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US20220255125, PCT Filed 7/20/20) in view of Sun et al (US20220216507, PCT filed 12/19/2019) 13. Regarding claim 5, the complete discussion of Suzuki as applied to claim 1 is incorporated herein. However, they are silent about primary teachings of claim 5. 14. Sun teaches LibMaXc, wherein M is Y, Yb and; X is one or more selected from F, Cl, Br and I; 0.2≤b≤6; 0.1≤a≤3; and 1≤c≤9 (see Sun claim 1) for the benefit of providing a solid electrolyte material with high lithium ionic conductivity [0064] 15. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki’s teachings with Sun’s teachings for the benefit of providing a solid electrolyte material with high lithium ionic conductivity. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLATUNJI GODO whose telephone number is (571)272-3104. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:30 pm. 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, Nicholas Smith can be reached on 571-272-8760. 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. /OLATUNJI A GODO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 01, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603346
THERMAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR RECHARGEABLE BATTERIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603318
DISTRIBUTED LARGE-SCALE SYSTEM OF ALL-VANADIUM REDOX FLOW BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597591
ELECTRODE FOR SECONDARY BATTERIES, AND SECONDARY BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597623
GENERATING POWER FROM RECYCLED HYDROCARBON GAS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597616
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING HYDROGEN STACK CURRENT AND LOAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 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
86%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+9.1%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1106 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