CTNF 18/461,166 CTNF 102032 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. 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 Claim 13 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 13 recites the limitation " the lithium halide-based " in line 1 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 is dependent on claim 4. The lithium halide-based solid electrolyte is not mentioned in claim 4. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will read claim 13 as dependent on claim 12. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 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, 7, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1) and (a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Sun et al. (CN 111509222 A) . Regarding claim 1, Sun teaches a method for restoring ionic conductivity of a halide solid electrolyte material using a dehydration treatment (Summary of Invention pg. 4 of translation; meets claimed heat-treatment for renewing halide-based solid electrolyte). Sun also teaches halide electrolytes have poor stability to humid air and easily absorb water in the air to cause structural changes and even hydrolysis, which leads to rapid decay of the ion conductance of the material (background paragraph; meets claimed halide-based solid electrolyte exposed to air leading to decreased performance). Regarding claim 2, Sun teaches a dehydration reaction at 260 degrees Celsius (Fig. 2 description; meets claimed heat treatment performed at temperature of about 200 to 400 degrees Celsius). Regarding claim 3, Sun teaches a dehydration reaction at 260 degrees Celsius (Fig. 2 description; meets claimed heat treatment performed at temperature of about 250 to 350 degrees Celsius). Regarding claim 5, Sun teaches application of the halide electrolyte in a dry room and an atmospheric environment (summary of invention pg. 4 of translation; meets claimed ambient conditions). Regarding claim 6, Sun teaches application of the halide electrolyte in a dry room and an atmospheric environment (summary of invention pg. 4 of translation; meets pressure of 1 atm). Regarding claim 7, Sun teaches a reaction time for the heating treatment of 10 hours (example 3; meets claimed heat treatment performed for up to 12 hours). Regarding claim 10, Sun teaches a treatment that takes place in a furnace (example 3; meets claimed heat treatment performed in an oven). Regarding claim 11, Sun teaches a halide based solid electrolyte including Li3YCl6 (comparative example 1; meets claimed halide-based solid electrolyte comprises chlorine). Regarding claim 12, Sun teaches a halide based solid electrolyte including Li3YCl6 (comparative example 1; meets claimed halide-based solid electrolyte is a lithium halide-based solid electrolyte). Regarding claim 13, Sun teaches a halide based solid electrolyte including Li3YCl6 (comparative example 1; meets claimed halide-based solid electrolyte includes at least one selected group consisting of Li3YCl6). Regarding claim 14, Sun teaches ion conductance of the material after exposure to humid air and subsequent drying and annealing does not change much from the original ion conductance (Fig. 8; meets claimed ionic conductivity of renewed electrolyte after heating is 80 to 100% of a corresponding pristine electrolyte). Regarding claim 15, Sun teaches ion conductance of the material after exposure to humid air and subsequent drying and annealing does not change much from the original ion conductance (Fig. 8; meetings claimed ionic conductivity of electrolyte is recovered to 90 to 100% compared to before heat treatment) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 4, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (CN 111509222 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sun et al. (US 20220216057 A1) . Regarding claim 4, Sun et al. (CN 111509222 A) teaches a dehydration treatment for lithium halide-based solid electrolyte battery as applied above. Sun (CN 111509222 A) fails to teach dehydration treatment conditions. Sun et al. (US 20220216057 A1) teaches heating annealing can be carried out in an atmosphere such as air (paragraph 0022; meets claimed heat treatment performed in air). Sun and Sun are considered to be analogous to each other because they are both in the field of lithium halide-based solid electrolyte batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data to apply the heat treatment conditions of Sun (US 20220216057 A1) to the method of renewing a lithium halide-based solid electrolyte battery of Sun (CN 111509222 A) in order to improve ionic conductivity of the battery (paragraph 0004 of US 20220216057 A1). Regarding claim 8, Sun teaches the time for heating annealing is usually 10 minutes to 24 hours, preferably 1 to 10 hours (paragraph 0022; meets claimed heat treatment takes 30 mins to 8 hours) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data to apply the heat treatment conditions of Sun (US 20220216057 A1) to the method of renewing a lithium halide-based solid electrolyte battery of Sun (CN 111509222 A) in order to improve ionic conductivity of the battery. Regarding claim 9, Sun teaches the time for heating annealing is usually 10 minutes to 24 hours, preferably 1 to 10 hours (paragraph 0022; meets claimed heat treatment takes 1 to 3 hours). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data to apply the heat treatment conditions of Sun (US 20220216057 A1) to the method of renewing a lithium halide-based solid electrolyte battery of Sun (CN 111509222 A) in order to improve ionic conductivity of the battery. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MARGARET EVERITT whose telephone number is (571) 270-0240. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm. 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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. /OLIVIA MARGARET EVERITT/Examiner, Art Unit 1759 April 29, 2026 /MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/461,166 Page 2 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/461,166 Page 3 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/461,166 Page 4 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/461,166 Page 5 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/461,166 Page 6 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/461,166 Page 7 Art Unit: 1759
Prosecution Insights