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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-14, filed 07/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 12 under 35 U.S.C section 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kim in view of Chavillon, which elaborates upon the disclosure of Kim and Chavillon.
The applicant asserts that Kim in view of Chavillon does not teach the feature “a ratio of a mass of the halide to a sum of a mass of the solid electrolyte and the mass of the halide is 1% or more and 50% or less”, as recited in dependent claim 12. This argument is moot in regards to a new grounds of rejection presented in view of Kim in view of Chavillon, which elaborates upon the disclosure of Kim and Chavillon. Here, Chavillon teaches a molar content of 0 to 50% of TaCl5 in a solution which contains a solvent and another salt Sr(AlCl4)2. This is equivalent to 0 to 33 molar percent of a combined molar content of the TaCl5 and the other salt. Accordingly, where a molar mass of TaCl5 is 358.2 g/mol, and Sr(AlCl4)2 has a molar mass of 425.2 g/mol, the relative weight percentage of TaCl5 is 0 to 29.6 mass percent.
Where Chavillon teaches a relative ratio of their additive TaCl5 relative to the other active component in their composition, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, when applying the additive of Chavillon to the invention of Kim, to apply the additive in the same mass ratio.
Additionally, the applicant asserts that Kim in view of Chavillon fails to teach the feature of “a halide comprising M2 and X2 ... the M2 is at least one selected from the group consisting of Nb and Ta … the X2 is at least one selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br, and I”, as recited in claim 1. The applicant asserts that it is unclear, based on the assertion of the office action, if Chavillon’s TaCl5 additive would dissolve in the solvent contained in the slurry that is used to form the electrolyte film, and that therefore there would be no reasonable expectation that the effect of limiting battery self-discharge and corrosion would be achieved. This argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive. Here, where the it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to add the additive of Chavillon to the invention of Kim, it would be obvious to said individual to take ordinary steps in the course of combination to ensure that said combination is functional, which includes the inclusion of any requisite solvents that would be needed to dissolve Chavillon’s additive, in the event that it is not dissolved by the solvents already present in the composition of Kim. Additionally, Chavillon discloses that the scope that is required for their solvent is that it comprise sulfur or phosphorous, with no other specification regarding the composition of the solvent (Paragraph 0058). Where Kim’s disclosure discusses specifically an organic solvent, these two requirements are not incompatible, as organic solvents may comprise sulfur or phosphorous, and where in combining said arts the identification of an appropriate solvent which simultaneously satisfied both requirements would be an ordinary part of the work of the individual ordinarily skilled in the art.
Additionally, the applicant asserts that Kim, Chavillon, Lim, and Yan do not teach the feature, “wherein the solid electrolyte comprises LiTaOCl4”, as recited in claim 4. The applicant asserts that Lim’s LiTaO3 does not fall within the scope of Kim’s solid electrolyte and that significant trial and error would be needed to arrive at the claimed invention through multiple such modifications. This argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive. Lim in view of Yan are not presented within the context of modifying Kim’s presented solid electrolyte formula to achieve the LiTaOCl4 component, but rather adding LiTaOCl4 to the solid electrolyte of modified Kim. Here, it is noted that claim 4, and claim 1 upon which claim 4 depends present the composition of the solid electrolyte in “comprising” language, which does not exclude additional components beyond that which are specifically claimed. Accordingly, where modified Kim makes obvious the scope of claim 1, Lim and Yan can make obvious the addition of LiTaOCl4 to the composition of modified Kim, resulting in a solid electrolyte which is a mixture of multiple solid electrolyte components, without replacing any component, while satisfying the scope of the claims.
Additionally, where the applicant asserts that a significant amount of trial and error would be needed to arrive at the claimed invention through multiple such combinations, this argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive, as it does not specifically challenge or point out any of the features of the combinations that the applicant considers to be non-obvious, and is instead conclusory.
Additionally, the applicant’s amendment to claim 15 has resolved the issue of indefiniteness in regards to said claim, and the rejection of claim 15 on the grounds of indefiniteness is withdrawn.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 12-15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2020/0381772 A1) in view of Chavillon (US 2018/0151913 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim is an analogous art to the instant application, being directed towards the art of solid electrolytes (Abstract, “The present disclosure provides a solid electrolyte”). Here, Kim discloses a solid electrolyte composition comprising a solid electrolyte comprising Li, M1, O and X1 (Abstract, “a solid electrolyte including an oxysulfide-based compound represented by LiaPbMcSdOeX”), where M1 is at least one selected from the group consisting of Nb and Ta (Paragraph 0015, “Formula 1, M is one selected from a group consisting of Zr, Nb, Hf, Ta”), and X1 is at least one selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br, and I (Paragraph 0015, “X is one selected from a group consisting of F, Cl, Br, and I”).
Additionally, Kim discloses that their composition comprises a solvent (Paragraph 0100, “may be prepared by dispersing in a solvent”), specifically disclosing the use organic solvents in the context of solid electrolytes (Paragraph 0003, “The lithium secondary battery, which employs a liquid electrolyte in which a lithium salt is dissolved in an organic solvent,”).
However, in regards to the feature of the claim which requires inclusion of a halide in the composition which comprises M2 and X2, and where M2 is at least one selected from Nb and Ta, and where X2 is at least one selected from F, Cl, Br, and I, Kim fails to disclose said structure. Therefore, we look to Chavillon, which is an analogous art to the instant application, being directed towards the art of batteries comprising salt-containing electrolytes (Abstract, “The invention relates to a liquid cathode battery which comprises: an anode made of calcium; an electrolyte comprising a sulphur-containing and/or phosphorous-containing oxidising solvent and at least one salt;”). Here, Chavillon discloses that their battery’s electrolyte comprises an additive (Paragraph 0069, “This and these additives may be chosen from hydrofluoric acid HF, SO2 , salts such [as] TaCl5”), disclosing that the additive has the effect of limiting self-discharge of batteries and corrosion (Paragraph 0068, “the electrolyte may include one or more additives chosen, for example, in order to limit the self-discharge of batteries and corrosion during discharge.”). Based on this, to limit self-discharge and corrosion, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to make use of the TaCl5 additive of Chavillon, thereby reading upon and making obvious the feature of the claim which requires inclusion of a halide in the composition which comprises M2 and X2, and where M2 is at least one selected from Nb and Ta, and where X2 is at least one selected from F, Cl, Br, and I.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of claim 1. Additionally, as discussed above, Kim discloses a composition where X1 comprises Cl (Paragraph 0103, “The materials were synthesized to provide a composition below…”).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of claim 1. Additionally, as discussed above, Kim discloses a composition where M1 comprises Ta (Paragraph 0015, “Formula 1, M is one selected from a group consisting of Zr, Nb, Hf, Ta”)
Regarding Claims 5-7, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, as discussed above, Chavillon makes obvious the use of the halide additive TaCl5 (Paragraph 0069, “This and these additives may be chosen from hydrofluoric acid HF, SO2 , salts such [as] TaCl5”). Accordingly, this satisfies the claims that require that X2 comprise Cl, M2 comprise Ta, and the halide be TaCl5.
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, as discussed above, Kim discloses structure where M1 is Ta (Paragraph 0015, “Formula 1, M is one selected from a group consisting of Zr, Nb, Hf, Ta”) and X1 is Cl (Paragraph 0015, “X is one selected from a group consisting of F, Cl, Br, and I”). Additionally Chavillon makes obvious the use of the halide additive TaCl5 (Paragraph 0069, “This and these additives may be chosen from hydrofluoric acid HF, SO2 , salts such [as] TaCl5”) where M2 is Ta, and X2 is Cl. Accordingly, both M1 and M2 are Ta, and both X1 and X2 are Cl.
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the inclusion of their halide additive, Chavillon teaches that it is present at a concentration of 0 to 50% of their electrolyte’s salt (Paragraph 0070, “This and these additives may be present at a concentration ranging from 0 to 50% of the concentration of the salt.”). Here, where both the salt and additive are present in the same volume, a concentration ratio is equivalent to a molar ratio, and Kim therefore teaches a molar content of the additive ranging from 0 to 50% of the molar content of the salt, which is equivalent to a ratio of the molar content of the additive to the sum of the molar content of the additive and the salt of 0% to 33%. Accordingly, where a molar mass of TaCl5 is 358.2 g/mol, and Sr(AlCl4)2 has a molar mass of 425.2 g/mol, the relative weight percentage of TaCl5 is 0 to 29.6 mass percent. Where Chavillon teaches a relative ratio of their additive TaCl5 relative to the other active component in their composition, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, when applying the additive of Chavillon to the invention of Kim, to apply the additive in the same mass ratio.
Here, these ratios overlap with the ratios of the instant claims 1% to 50% and 10% to 50%, thereby providing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Additionally, where the additive of Chavillon has the function of limiting self-discharge and corrosion, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to maximize the content of the additive to maximize the protective effects, thereby making obvious a ratio of 29.6 mass%, which satisfies the limitations of the claims.
Regarding Claim 14, Kim is an analogous art to the instant application, being directed towards the art of solid electrolytes (Abstract, “The present disclosure provides a solid electrolyte”). Here, Kim discloses a solid electrolyte composition comprising a solid electrolyte comprising Li, M1, O and X1 (Abstract, “a solid electrolyte including an oxysulfide-based compound represented by LiaPbMcSdOeX”), where M1 is at least one selected from the group consisting of Nb and Ta (Paragraph 0015, “Formula 1, M is one selected from a group consisting of Zr, Nb, Hf, Ta”), and X1 is at least one selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br, and I (Paragraph 0015, “X is one selected from a group consisting of F, Cl, Br, and I”).
However, in regards to the feature of the claim which requires inclusion of a halide in the composition which comprises M2 and X2, and where M2 is at least one selected from Nb and Ta, and where X2 is at least one selected from F, Cl, Br, and I, Kim fails to disclose said structure. Therefore, we look to Chavillon, which is an analogous art to the instant application, being directed towards the art of batteries comprising salt-containing electrolytes (Abstract, “The invention relates to a liquid cathode battery which comprises: an anode made of calcium; an electrolyte comprising a sulphur-containing and/or phosphorous-containing oxidising solvent and at least one salt;”). Here, Chavillon discloses that their battery’s electrolyte comprises an additive (Paragraph 0069, “This and these additives may be chosen from hydrofluoric acid HF, SO2 , salts such [as] TaCl5”), disclosing that the additive has the effect of limiting self-discharge of batteries and corrosion (Paragraph 0068, “the electrolyte may include one or more additives chosen, for example, in order to limit the self-discharge of batteries and corrosion during discharge.”). Based on this, to limit self-discharge and corrosion, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to make use of the TaCl5 additive of Chavillon, thereby reading upon and making obvious the feature of the claim which requires inclusion of a halide in the composition which comprises M2 and X2, and where M2 is at least one selected from Nb and Ta, and where X2 is at least one selected from F, Cl, Br, and I.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, modified Kim makes obvious a method of producing the solid electrolyte composition, comprising synthesizing a solid electrolyte with the use of a raw material comprising a halide (Paragraphs 0024-0025, “The method includes: (a) mixing lithium sulfide, P2S5, oxide of a metal M, and LiX (where, M is one or more selected from a group consisting of Zr, Nb, Hf, Ta, Ga, In, Ti, Pb, Bi, Ge, As, Sb, Si, B, and Al, and X is F, Cl, Br, and I);”), and mixing the solid electrolyte, the halide (Paragraph 0025, “mixing lithium sulfide, P2S5, oxide of a metal M, and LiX”), and an organic solvent to prepare the solid electrolyte composition (Paragraph 0100, “or may be prepared by dispersing in a solvent to form a slurry”) to prepare the solid electrolyte composition.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 14. Additionally, Kim makes obvious an all-solid-state battery comprising the solid electrolyte material according to claim 14 (Abstract, “The present disclosure provides a solid electrolyte including an oxysulfide-based compound represented by LiaPbMcSdOeX (Formula 1) and having excellent stability against moisture, a method of manufacturing the solid electrolyte, and an all-solid-state battery showing superior manufacturing processability”).
Claim(s) 4 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2020/0381772 A1) in view of Chavillon (US 2018/0151913 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lim (US 2018/0323435 A1) and Yan Et al (First-Principles Study: Tuning the Redox Behavior of Lithium-Rich Layered Oxides by Chlorine Doping).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the solid electrolyte comprises LiTaOCl4, Kim fails to disclose said structure. Therefore we look to Lim, which is an analogous art to the instant application, being in the art of battery materials for all-solid state batteries (Abstract, “A cathode material may include a coating layer capable of preventing transition metal cations from being diffused between a cathode active material and a solid electrolyte when an all-solid state battery is charged and discharged, and a method for preparing the same.”). Here, Lim discloses a coating layer on a cathode active material.
Here, Lim discloses that the inclusion of lithium tantalate prevents the diffusion of transition metal cations (Paragraph 0076, “Meanwhile, the LiTaO3 has high strain energy due to large density and rigidity and has an excellent effect of preventing the diffusion of transition metal cations.”), as well as high density and rigidity. Where Lim discloses that transition metal cation diffusion prevention reduces the interface resistance between the cathode and solid electrolyte, and improves charge/discharge performance (Paragraph 0046, “Accordingly, it is possible to obtain an all-solid state battery with improved charge/discharge performance by reducing an interface resistance between the cathode active material and the solid electrolyte.”) it would be obvious to implement the LiTaO3 of Lim into the solid electrolyte of Kim.
Additionally, Yan et al. teaches the benefits of chlorine doping of lithium oxides (Abstract, “The results showed that chlorine doping can decrease the charge potential, modulate the ratio of two redox couples of cation and anion, and lower the band gap of LLOs. These tunings were beneficial for the modification of the safety, cycling stability, and voltage decay of LLOs materials”) providing benefits in regards to safety, cycling stability, and voltage decay for said materials. Based on this, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to chlorine dope the LiTaO3 of Lim, thereby resulting in LiTaOCl4, reading upon and making obvious the limitation of the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Kim makes obvious the invention as discussed above in regards to claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the solid electrolyte is free of sulfur, Kim fails to disclose said structure. Therefore we look to Lim, which is an analogous art to the instant application, being in the art of battery materials for all-solid state batteries (Abstract, “A cathode material may include a coating layer capable of preventing transition metal cations from being diffused between a cathode active material and a solid electrolyte when an all-solid state battery is charged and discharged, and a method for preparing the same.”). Here, Lim discloses a coating layer on a cathode active material which comprises lithium tantalate (Paragraph 0076).
Here, Lim discloses that the inclusion of lithium tantalate prevents the diffusion of transition metal cations (Paragraph 0076, “Meanwhile, the LiTaO3 has high strain energy due to large density and rigidity and has an excellent effect of preventing the diffusion of transition metal cations.”), as well as high density and rigidity. Where Lim discloses that transition metal cation diffusion prevention reduces the interface resistance between the cathode and solid electrolyte, and improves charge/discharge performance (Paragraph 0046, “Accordingly, it is possible to obtain an all-solid state battery with improved charge/discharge performance by reducing an interface resistance between the cathode active material and the solid electrolyte.”) it would be obvious to implement the LiTaO3 of Lim into the solid electrolyte of Kim.
Additionally, Yan et al. teaches the benefits of chlorine doping of lithium oxides (Abstract, “The results showed that chlorine doping can decrease the charge potential, modulate the ratio of two redox couples of cation and anion, and lower the band gap of LLOs. These tunings were beneficial for the modification of the safety, cycling stability, and voltage decay of LLOs materials”) providing benefits in regards to safety, cycling stability, and voltage decay for said materials. Based on this, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to chlorine dope the LiTaO3 of Lim, thereby resulting in LiTaOCl4. Accordingly, Lim and Yan make obvious structure where the solid electrolyte composition of Kim comprises two solid electrolytes, both of which satisfy the solid electrolyte requirements of claim 1. Accordingly, where the second solid electrolyte is LiTaOCl4, this solid electrolyte is free of sulfur. It is noted here that the claim does not require that the solid electrolyte composition be free of sulfur, only a solid electrolyte component within it.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2020/0381772 A1) in view of Chavillon (US 2018/151913 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamada (US 2020/0373612 A1).
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the organic solvent comprise at least one of a halogen-group-containing compound and a hydrocarbon, Kim is silent in regard to specific organic solvent identities. Therefore, we look to Yamada, which is an analogous art to the instant application, being directed towards the art of halogen-comprising solid electrolytes (Abstract, “Disclosed is a method for producing a sulfide-based solid electrolyte containing an alkali metal, a sulfur element, a phosphorus element and a halogen element,”) which include organic solvents (Abstract, “and a halogen element in an organic solvent having an electron-withdrawing group.”).
Here, Yamada discloses that their organic solvent with an electron withdrawing group causes the solid electrolyte produced to have a high ionic conductivity (Paragraph 0025, “Using an organic solvent having an electron-withdrawing group, the electrolyte produced can have a high ion conductivity.”). Yamada further discloses that a preferable electrolyte is chlorobenzene (Paragraph 0028, “chlorobenzene is especially preferred.”). Based on this, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to make use of chlorobenzene as an organic solvent in the invention of Kim, thereby satisfying the limitation of claim 10 which requires that the solvent is a halogen-group-containing compound, and the limitation of claim 11 which requires that the solvent be selected from a group which includes chlorobenzene.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2020/0381772 A1) in view of Chavillon (US 2018/151913 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Okita (US 2015/0044552 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Kim teaches the invention as disclosed above in regards to claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the instant claim’s limitation which requires that the halide is dispersed in the organic solvent while maintaining a particulate shape, where Chavillon makes obvious the inclusion of the halide TaCl5 as discussed above, and where they disclose that their additive is dispersed in a solvent which is either sulfur containing or phosphorous containing (Paragraph 0058), they do not discuss the form of the halide during the dispersing. Therefore we look to Okita, which is an analogous art to the instant application, being directed towards the art of metal halide particle components in solid lithium ion conductive compositions (Abstract, “in which a film composed of carbon black permeable to lithium ions is formed on a surface of the positive electrode active material, and the film contains lithium fluoride particles serving as metal halide particles.”).
Here, Okita discusses a solid film comprising lithium ion permeable material, as well as metal halide particles (Paragraph 0008, “ in which a film permeable to lithium ions is formed on a surface of the positive electrode active material, and the film contains metal halide particles.”). Okita further teaches that when the solid layer comprises metal halide, in a particulate form, the metal halide is capable of inhibiting reactions between oxygen, and other adjacent components (Paragraph 0012, “in the case where the film formed on the surface of the positive electrode active material contains the metal halide particles, it is possible to effectively inhibit a reaction between oxygen released from the positive electrode active material and an electrolytic solution even in a high-temperature state (150.degree. C. or higher)”, thereby improving thermal stability (Paragraph 0012, “This will significantly improve the thermal stability.”). Here, the art of Kim is an analogous art to the claimed invention, being directed towards the art of solid electrolytes (Abstract, “The present disclosure provides a solid electrolyte”), disclosing that their solid electrolyte composition comprises a solid electrolyte which contains oxygen (Abstract, “a solid electrolyte including an oxysulfide-based compound represented by LiaPbMcSdOeX”).
Accordingly, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing of the instant application to select the form of the metal halide of Chavillon as a particle when the solid electrolyte is in its final solid state, so as to result in their addition to the composition of Kim having the effect taught by Okita, thereby improving thermal stability through inhibiting unwanted side reactions. Accordingly, this makes obvious the limitation of the instant claim which requires that the halide is dispersed in an organic solvent while maintaining a particulate shape, as for the halide to have a particulate shape in the final state of the solid electrolyte, it must therefore have a particulate shape during the earlier dispersal process.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2020/0381772 A1) in view of Chavillon (US 2018/0151913 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lim (US 2018/0323435 A1) and Yan Et al (First-Principles Study: Tuning the Redox Behavior of Lithium-Rich Layered Oxides by Chlorine Doping), in further view of Yokoyama (US 2019/0097267 A1)
Regarding Claim 18, modified Kim makes obvious the invention as discussed above in regards to claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the solid electrolyte is an oxyhalide-based solid electrolyte, Kim fails to disclose said structure. Therefore we look to Lim, which is an analogous art to the instant application, being in the art of battery materials for all-solid state batteries (Abstract, “A cathode material may include a coating layer capable of preventing transition metal cations from being diffused between a cathode active material and a solid electrolyte when an all-solid state battery is charged and discharged, and a method for preparing the same.”). Here, Lim discloses a coating layer on a cathode active material which comprises lithium tantalate (Paragraph 0076).
Here, Lim discloses that the inclusion of lithium tantalate prevents the diffusion of transition metal cations (Paragraph 0076, “Meanwhile, the LiTaO3 has high strain energy due to large density and rigidity and has an excellent effect of preventing the diffusion of transition metal cations.”), as well as high density and rigidity. Where Lim discloses that transition metal cation diffusion prevention reduces the interface resistance between the cathode and solid electrolyte, and improves charge/discharge performance (Paragraph 0046, “Accordingly, it is possible to obtain an all-solid state battery with improved charge/discharge performance by reducing an interface resistance between the cathode active material and the solid electrolyte.”) it would be obvious to implement the LiTaO3 of Lim into the solid electrolyte of Kim.
Additionally, Yan et al. teaches the benefits of chlorine doping of lithium oxides (Abstract, “The results showed that chlorine doping can decrease the charge potential, modulate the ratio of two redox couples of cation and anion, and lower the band gap of LLOs. These tunings were beneficial for the modification of the safety, cycling stability, and voltage decay of LLOs materials”) providing benefits in regards to safety, cycling stability, and voltage decay for said materials. Based on this, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to chlorine dope the LiTaO3 of Lim, thereby resulting in LiTaOCl4. Accordingly, Lim and Yan make obvious structure where the solid electrolyte composition of Kim comprises two solid electrolytes, both of which satisfy the solid electrolyte requirements of claim 1. Accordingly, where the second solid electrolyte is LiTaOCl4, this solid electrolyte is an oxyhalide based solid electrolyte. It is noted here that the claim does not require that the solid electrolyte composition be oxyhalide based, only a solid electrolyte component within it.
Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the halide comprises a same compound as a raw material used for synthesizing the oxyhalide-based solid electrolyte, this limitation is treated as a product by process limitation, and as such the scope is that it requires that the halide comprises a same compound as a raw material which could be used for synthesizing the oxyhalide-based solid electrolyte. Here, Yokoyama discloses that TaCl5 may be used as a raw material containing tantalum (Paragraph 0091), and where TaCl5 is the halide, and where the oxyhalide-based solid electrolyte of Lim in view of Tan comprises tantalum, the TaCl5 is therefore a same compound as a raw material which could be used for synthesizing the oxyhalide-based solid electrolyte.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN W ESTES whose telephone number is (571)272-4820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:30.
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 5712721453. 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.
/J.W.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/Sean P Cullen, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights