CTNF 18/449,318 CTNF 86779 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Status of Claims and Other Notes Claims 1–20 are pending. Claims 1–10 are being treated on their merits. Claims 11–20 are withdrawn from consideration. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject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 paragraph numbers cited in this Office Action in reference to the instant application are referring to the paragraph numbering of the PG-Pub of the instant application. See US 2024/0128502 A1. Election/Restrictions 08-08 AIA Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121: I. Claim s 1–10 , drawn to a solid electrolyte , classified in H01M10/0562 . II. Claim s 11–20 , drawn to a method for preparing a solid electrolyte , classified in C01D15/04 . 08-13 AIA The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because: 08-18 AIA Inventions II and I are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, the solid electrolyte as claimed can be made by another and materially different method for preparing a solid electrolyte, such as, preparing a starting material comprising a single compound including a single halogen element. The claimed method requires two or more compounds comprising different halogen elements, whereas the claimed product allows for X1 and X2 to be the same, which would not require two or more compounds comprising different halogen elements to be prepared . Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; and the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different class/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries) . 18-22 AIA Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention . The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. 08-23 During a telephone/email conversation with Ira Matsil (Reg. No. 35,272) on 18 March 2026, a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of a solid electrolyte, claims 1–10 . Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 11–20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. 08-23-02 AIA Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i). 08-21-04 AIA The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined. In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 14 August 2023, 17 August 2023, and 11 July 2024 were filed before the mailing of a first Office Action on the merits. The submissions comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Drawings 06-22 AIA The drawings are objected to because : The numbers, letters, and/or reference characters of FIGS. 3A–6B are not at least 0.32 cm (1/8 inch) in height. Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least 0.32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. See 37 CFR 1.84 (p)(3) . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 06-11-01 AIA The following title is suggested: SOLID ELECTROYTE INCLUDING LITHIUM THIOPHOSPHATE HALIDE AND METAL-DOPED LITHIUM THIOPHOSPHATE HALIDE, AND METHOD FOR PREPARING SAME . The use of the term Ketjen black (e.g., [0072]), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term is not accompanied by its generic terminology and does not include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® . The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1–10 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein X1 and X2 are the same or different and are each an element selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br, and I." Claim 1 also recites the limitations "a first chemical formula Li 7-a PS 6-a (X1 1-b X2 b ) a " prior to this limitation and "a second chemical formula Li 7-c P 1-2d M d S 6-c-3d (X1 1-e X2 e ) c " subsequent to this limitation. It is unclear if the limitation "wherein X1 and X2 are the same or different and are each an element selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br, and I" applies to both "a first chemical formula" and "a second chemical formula" (i.e., X1 and X2 in the first chemical formula = X1 and X2 in the second chemical formula). Claim 2 recites the limitation "a third chemical formula Li f M g S h ." Claim 1, which claim 2 is directly dependent, recites the limitation "wherein M comprises an element selected from the group consisting of Ge, Si, and Sn." It is unclear if the limitation "wherein M comprises an element selected from the group consisting of Ge, Si, and Sn" applies to both "a second chemical formula" and "a third chemical formula" (i.e., M in the second chemical formula = M in the third chemical formula). Claim 3 is directly dependent from claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 is also 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. Claim 4 recites the limitation "a cubic argyrodite-type crystal structure." The addition of the word "type" extends the scope of the claims so as to render them indefinite since it is unclear what "type" is intended to convey. The addition of the word "type" to the otherwise definite expression renders the definite expression indefinite by extending its scope. Ex parte Copenhaver , 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. App. 1955). See MPEP 2173.05(b). Claim 5 recites the limitation "a cubic argyrodite-type crystal structure." The addition of the word "type" extends the scope of the claims so as to render them indefinite since it is unclear what "type" is intended to convey. The addition of the word "type" to the otherwise definite expression renders the definite expression indefinite by extending its scope. Ex parte Copenhaver , 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. App. 1955). See MPEP 2173.05(b). Claim 6 is directly dependent from claim 1 and includes all the limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is also 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. Claim 7 recites the limitation "a ratio (I (25) /I (17) ) of peak intensity at 2θ = 25 ± 0.5° to peak intensity at 2θ = 17 ± 0.5° in an X-ray diffraction pattern of 1 to 10." It is unclear if "1 to 10" is the ratio (I (25) /I (17) ) (i.e., I (25) /I (17) = 1/10) or "1 to 10" is a range of ratios for (I (25) /I (17) ) (i.e., 1 ≤ I (25) /I (17) ≤ 10). Claims 8 and 9 are directly dependent from claim 1 and include all the limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claims 8 and 9 are also 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. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the solid electrolyte of claim 1" and includes all the limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is also 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 3, 5–8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Li et al. (WO 2022/094412 A1, hereinafter Li) . Regarding claim 1 , Li discloses a solid electrolyte (see solid state multilayer, P23/L13–18) comprising: a first compound (see first solid state electrolyte, P23/L13–18) represented by a first chemical formula Li 7-a PS 6-a (X1 1-b X2 b ) a (TABLE 1, P23/L25–31), wherein X1 and X2 are the same or different and are each an element selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br, and I (TABLE 1, P23/L25–31), and wherein 0 < a ≤ 2 and 0 < b < 1 (TABLE 1, P23/L25–31); and a second compound (see second solid state electrolyte, P23/L13–18) represented by a second chemical formula Li 7-c P 1-2d M d S 6-c-3d (X1 1-e X2 e ) c (TABLE 2, P26/L3–4), wherein M comprises an element selected from the group consisting of Ge, Si, and Sn, and combination thereof, and wherein 0 < c ≤ 2, 0 < d < 0.5, and 0 < e < 1 (TABLE 2, P26/L3–4). Regarding claim 3 , Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a solid electrolyte: wherein, in the second chemical formula, 0 < d ≤ 0.1 (TABLE 7, P26/L3–4). Regarding claim 5 , Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose a solid electrolyte: wherein the solid electrolyte has properties such that as d in the second chemical formula increases, 2θ value of a peak of a (220) plane in an X-ray diffraction pattern of the solid electrolyte shifts to lower angles by greater than 0° and 0.1° or less, wherein the peak of the (220) plane is due to a cubic argyrodite-type crystal structure. However, Li discloses a solid electrolyte comprising an identical second compound (TABLE 7, P26/L3–4). "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." 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. In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the solid electrolyte inherently possesses properties such that as d in the second chemical formula increases, 2θ value of a peak of a (220) plane in an X-ray diffraction pattern of the solid electrolyte shifts to lower angles by greater than 0° and 0.1° or less, wherein the peak of the (220) plane is due to a cubic argyrodite-type crystal structure. Regarding claim 6 , Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a solid electrolyte: wherein the solid electrolyte has a ratio (I (38.5) /I (30.0) ) of peak intensity at 2θ = 38.5 ± 0.5° to peak intensity at 2θ = 30 ± 0.5° in an X-ray diffraction pattern of 0.01 or less (FIG. 23, P35/L25–30). FIG. 23 illustrates an XRD diffraction pattern of a first compound, which has a ratio (I (38.5) /I (30.0) ) of peak intensity at 2θ = 38.5 ± 0.5° to peak intensity at 2θ = 30 ± 0.5° in an X-ray diffraction pattern of 0.01 or less. The I (38.5) /I (30.0) ratio of LPSCl-I LPSCl-F, and LPSCl are approximately 0.0, which is less than 0.01. Regarding claim 7 , Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a solid electrolyte: wherein the solid electrolyte has a ratio (I (25) /I (17) ) of peak intensity at 2θ = 25 ± 0.5° to peak intensity at 2θ = 17 ± 0.5° in an X-ray diffraction pattern of 1 to 10 (FIG. 23, P35/L25–30). FIG. 23 illustrates an XRD diffraction pattern of a first compound, which has a ratio (I (25) /I (17) ) of peak intensity at 2θ = 25 ± 0.5° to peak intensity at 2θ = 17 ± 0.5° in an X-ray diffraction pattern of 1 to 10. The I (25) /I (17) ratio of LPSCl-I LPSCl-Br, and LPSCl are approximately 2.0, which is greater than 1 and less than 10. Regarding claim 8 , Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above wherein, when the solid electrolyte is analyzed by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, a first region and a second region with different contents of M appear (FIG. 29, P20/L25–30), in which the content of M in the first region is 0.9 at % to 1.2 at % (FIG. 29, P20/L25–30; TABLE 7, P26/L3–4) and the content of M in the second region is 0.2 at % to 0.5 at % (FIG. 29, P20/L25–30; TABLE 7, P26/L3–4). FIG. 29 illustrates an X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy analysis illustrating a first region and a second region with different contents of M appear for a second compound; and TABLE 7 discloses contents of M in a second compound of 0.9 at/% to 1.2 at% and 0.2 at% to 0.5 at%. Regarding claim 10 , Li discloses an all-solid-state battery comprising a cathode layer; an anode layer; and a solid electrolyte layer interposed between the cathode layer and the anode layer; and wherein the cathode layer, the anode layer, or the solid electrolyte layer comprises a solid electrolyte (see rechargeable batteries, P23/L13–18), wherein the solid electrolyte (see solid state multilayer, P23/L13–18) comprises: a first compound (see first solid state electrolyte, P23/L13–18) represented by a first chemical formula Li 7-a PS 6-a (X1 1-b X2 b ) a (TABLE 1, P23/L25–31), wherein X1 and X2 are the same or different and are each an element selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br, and I (TABLE 1, P23/L25–31), and wherein 0 < a ≤ 2 and 0 < b < 1 (TABLE 1, P23/L25–31); and a second compound (see second solid state electrolyte, P23/L13–18) represented by a second chemical formula Li 7-c P 1-2d M d S 6-c-3d (X1 1-e X2 e ) c (TABLE 2, P26/L3–4), wherein M comprises an element selected from the group consisting of Ge, Si, and Sn, and combination thereof, and wherein 0 < c ≤ 2, 0 < d < 0.5, and 0 < e < 1 (TABLE 2, P26/L3–4) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (WO 2022/094412 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2020/0227775 A1, hereinafter Wang) . Regarding claim 2 , Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose a solid electrolyte: wherein the solid electrolyte further comprises a third compound represented by a third chemical formula Li f M g S h , wherein 0 < f ≤ 10, 0 < g ≤ 5, and 0 < h ≤ 10. Wang discloses a solid electrolyte further comprises a third compound represented by a third chemical formula Li f M g S h (see Li x Si y S z , [0044]), wherein 0 < f ≤ 10, 0 < g ≤ 5, and 0 < h ≤ 10 (see Li x Si y S z , [0044]) to improve lithium-ion conductivity and stability of the solid electrolyte (see solid-state lithium-ion conducting material , [0025]). Li and Wang are analogous because they are directed to solid electrolytes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the solid electrolyte of Li with the third compound of Wang in order to improve lithium-ion conductivity and stability 07-22-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (WO 2022/094412 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al., (EP 4068426 A1, hereinafter Choi) . Regarding claim 4 , Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose a solid electrolyte: wherein an X-ray diffraction pattern of the solid electrolyte comprises a peak due to a cubic argyrodite-type crystal structure; and a peak due to an orthorhombic crystal structure. Choi discloses a solid electrolyte (FIG. 1, [0036]) having an X-ray diffraction pattern including a peak due to a cubic argyrodite-type crystal structure (see sulfide solid electrolyte, [0038]); and a peak due to an orthorhombic crystal structure (see metal oxides,. [0048]) to prevent side reactions of the solid electrolyte (see buffer layer, [0037]). Li and Choi are analogous because they are directed to solid electrolytes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the solid electrolyte of Li with the argyrodite-type crystal structure and orthorhombic crystal structure of Choi in order to prevent side reactions of the solid electrolyte . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (WO 2022/094412 A1) . Regarding claim 5 , Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose a solid electrolyte: wherein the solid electrolyte has properties such that as d in the second chemical formula increases, 2θ value of a peak of a (220) plane in an X-ray diffraction pattern of the solid electrolyte shifts to lower angles by greater than 0° and 0.1° or less, wherein the peak of the (220) plane is due to a cubic argyrodite-type crystal structure. However, Li discloses a solid electrolyte comprising an identical second compound (TABLE 7, P26/L3–4). "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." 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. In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the solid electrolyte inherently possesses properties such that as d in the second chemical formula increases, 2θ value of a peak of a (220) plane in an X-ray diffraction pattern of the solid electrolyte shifts to lower angles by greater than 0° and 0.1° or less, wherein the peak of the (220) plane is due to a cubic argyrodite-type crystal structure. Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, expressed as a 102/103 rejection. "There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102." In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977). This same rationale should also apply to product, apparatus, and process claims claimed in terms of function, property or characteristic. Therefore, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection is appropriate for these types of claims as well as for composition claims . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (WO 2022/094412 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0094824 A1, hereinafter Lee) . Regarding claim 9 , Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose a solid electrolyte: wherein the solid electrolyte has a lithium ion conductivity retention rate of 80% or more after 3 days under dry conditions in an air atmosphere having a dew point of -70° C. or less. Lee discloses a solid electrolyte has a ion conductivity retention 80% or more after 3 days under dry conditions in an air atmosphere having a dew point of -70° C. or less (see ion conductivity retention, [0063]) to improve the stability of the solid electrolyte (TABLE 1, [0160]). Li and Lee are analogous because they are directed to solid electrolytes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the solid electrolyte of Li with the ion conductivity retention of Lee in order to improve the stability of the solid electrolyte. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean P Cullen, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1251. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:00 am to 4:00 pm CT, Friday 6:00 am to 12:00 pm CT. 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 A 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. /Sean P Cullen, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/449,318 Page 2 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/449,318 Page 3 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/449,318 Page 5 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/449,318 Page 6 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/449,318 Page 7 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/449,318 Page 8 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/449,318 Page 9 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/449,318 Page 11 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/449,318 Page 12 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/449,318 Page 13 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/449,318 Page 14 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/449,318 Page 15 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/449,318 Page 16 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/449,318 Page 17 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/449,318 Page 18 Art Unit: 1725