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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 8/5/2026 is acknowledged. However, no arguments of traversal were presented. As such, the traversal is not found persuasive because no actual arguments were presented.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, 9-10, 13-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “M is either a one-way, two-way or three-way combination of the following species: Al3+…”, and the claim also recites “when M comprises Al3+, M is a two-way or three-way combination” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purposes of this office action, the broad recitation will be applied to claim 1. Further, claims 2, 6, 9-10, 13-14, and 18 are rejected since they depend from claim 1.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “or satisfy any combination that maintains charge neutrality of the compound”, and the claim also recites specific numeric limitations for x, y, z, and w with their respective defect site which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purposes of this office action, the broad recitation will be applied to claim 1. Further, claims 2, 6, 9-10, 13-14, and 18 are rejected since they depend from claim 1.
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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao et al. (CN 107425218A, see Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Shao et al. discloses a compound having Li/Al/Ti/B/O/Cl ([0012]-[0013]). The contents of each individual component results in a balanced, charge-neutral compound ([0012]-[0013]). The reference does not explicitly disclose the explicit amounts of respective elements in the lithium-composition (elements and individual contents). As the compound conductivity and thermal properties (see Shao et al., [0012]-[0017]) are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said relative amounts of chemical compounds, with said compound conductivity and thermal properties both varying as the relative amounts of chemical compounds are varied, the precise relative amounts of chemical compounds would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed relative amounts of chemical compounds cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the relative amounts of chemical compounds in the compound of Shao et al. to obtain the desired balance between the compound conductivity and thermal properties (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 6, modified Shao et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses M is Al and Y ([0012]-[0022]).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Shao et al. discloses a glass ceramic composition ([0012]-[0017]) comprising the compound as set forth above.
Regarding claims 13, 14 and 18, Shao et al. discloses a lithium ion battery ([0012]-[0017]) comprising a solid state ionic conduction ([0012]-[0017]), wherein the solid state ionic conductor ([0012]-[0017]) comprises the compound ([0012]-[0017]) as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Gaben discloses a compound including a lithium mixed metal oxide chloride ([0124]) utilized as a solid electrolyte in batteries (Abstract).
Barker et al. (US 6,136,472) discloses a battery (Abstract) comprising an electrode (Abstract) comprising a lithium mixed metal oxide chloride (C5/L38-67).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P EST.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights