DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5 were subjected to restriction requirement mailed on 05/04/2026.
Applicants filed a response, and elected species (a), claims 1-3 and 5, and withdrew claim 4, with traverse on 05/14/2026.
Claims 1-5 are pending, and claim 4 is withdrawn after consideration.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected.
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 of species (a) in the reply filed on 05/14/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 4 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/14/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Each line 1 of claims 2-3 and 5, it is suggested to amend “The producing method” to “The halide producing method”, to be consistent with the phrase “A halide producing method.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano et al., US 2019/0088995A1 (Asano) (provided in IDS received on 11/07/20223) in view of Michihiro et al., JPH06135715A (Michihiro) and Koga et al., Kinetic analyses of solid-state reactions with a particle-size distribution, J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 1998 (Koga).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of Michihiro et al., JPH06135715A (Michihiro). The citation of the prior art set forth below refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Asano teaches a solid electrolyte material, e.g., Li3YCl6, LiCl and YCl3 are sufficiently mixed, pulverized, and reacted with each other, or maybe then sintered to produce Li3YCl6 (Asano, [0086]) (reading upon heat-treating a material containing a halide and LiZ, wherein Z represents at least one element selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br and I).
However, Asano does not explicitly disclose that (a) the halide is obtained by the heat-treating of a material mixture, that is a material containing an MOx powder and an NH4X powder in an inert gas atmosphere or in a vacuum, wherein M represents at least one element selected from the group consisting of rare-earth elements, X represents at least one element selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br, and I, x is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 2, and (b) Requirement (a) or Requirement (b) below is satisfied, D1 ≤ D2 and D2 - D1 ≤ 0.5 × D2 (a) D2 < D1 and D1 - D2 ≤ 0.5 × D1 (b) where an average particle diameter of the MOx powder is denoted by D1, and an average particle diameter of the NH4X powder is denoted by D2.
With respect to the difference (a), Michihiro teaches to produce rare earth metal halide (Michihiro, Abstract). Michihiro specifically teaches rare earth oxide (Re2O3, Re is a rare earth element) reacts with ammonium halide to form an ammonium salt of a halogenated rare earth and the temperature for halogenation reaction of about 300˚C in an inert gas atmosphere (Michihiro, page 2, 2nd paragraph from bottom); subsequently, through a sublimation purification step, highly pure rare earth halide is produced (Michihiro, page 3, 3rd paragraph); the rare earth oxides includes Y oxide (i.e., Y2O3), and halogenating agent includes ammonium chloride (Michihiro, page 2, 2nd &3rd paragraphs from bottom).
As Michihiro expressly teaches, the rare earth metal halide prepared has high purity which is not attained by the conventional producing method (Michihiro, Abstract).
Michihiro is analogous art as Michihiro is drawn to producing rare earth metal halide (Michihiro, Abstract).
In light of the motivation of producing the rare earth metal halide using the halogenation reaction followed by sublimation purification, as taught by Michihiro, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the halogenation reaction followed by sublimation purification method to prepare the YCl3 of Asano, i.e., Y2O3 reacts with ammonium halide at a temperature for halogenation reaction of about 300˚C in an inert gas atmosphere and followed by a sublimation purification step, in order to use a YCl3 that is high purity, and thereby arrive at the claimed limitation.
With respect to the difference (b), Koga teaches kinetic analyses of solid-state reactions (Koga, Title and Abstract). Koga specifically teaches a uniform particle size (Koga, page 2, left column, 3rd paragraph; page 4, right column, 3rd paragraph).
As Koga expressly teaches, a reactant system with a uniform particle size is desired for kinetic model studies (Koga, page 2, left column, 3rd paragraph) (i.e., uniform particle size provides uniform reaction kinetic).
Koga is analogous art as Koga is drawn to kinetic analyses of solid-state reactions.
In light of the motivation of having a uniform particle size in the reaction system for solid state reaction, as taught by Koga, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prepare the Y2O3 and NH4Cl with uniform particle size, i.e., D1 is identical or substantially identical to D2, in order to achieve uniform reaction kinetics, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano in view of Michihiro and Koga, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chemistry, Chapter 102, James Madition University, 2018, (JMU).
Regarding claims 2-3, as applied to claim 1, Asano in view of Michihiro and Koga does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the average particle diameter D1 of the MOx powder and the average particle diameter of the NH4X powder is less than or equal to 100 μm; or further comprising: pulverizing at least one material selected from the group consisting of a plurality of materials to be contained in the material mixture, wherein the pulverizing of the at least one material is performed before preparing of a material mixture and the heat-treating of a material mixture.
With respect to the difference, JMU teaches the rate of chemical reactions (JMU, page 1, bottom paragraph). JMU specifically teaches smaller particles (JMU, page 2, 3rd paragraph).
As JMU expressly teaches, compared with the reaction rate for large solid particles, the rate for small particles will be greater because the surface area in contact with the other reactant phrase is greater (JMU, page 2, 3rd paragraph).
JMU is analogous art as JMU is drawn to the rate of chemical reactions.
In light of the motivation of using smaller particles for chemical reactions, as taught by JMU, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use small particle size for Y2O3 and NH4Cl, in Asano in view of Michihiro and Koga, to achieve greater reaction rates.
Although there are no disclosures on the exact average particle diameter, as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the average particle size for Y2O3 and NH4Cl, including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to achieve desired reaction rate, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Further regarding claim 3, given that Asano in view of Michihiro, Koga and JMU teaches the use of small particles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the particle size for Y2O3 and NH4Cl, using conventional techniques, such as pulverizing to achieve the desired particle size prior reaction, and yield expected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm 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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/KELING ZHANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights