DETAILED ACTION Notice to Applicant Claims 1- 10 and 15- 18 are pending and are examined herein. This is a Non-Final Rejection . 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. Claims 1- 6 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Regarding Claim 1 , the limitation “a network-modifying oxide (excluding Li 2 O, P 2 O 5 )” is indefinite, because it is unclear whether P 2 O 5 is still allowed as a “network-forming oxide , ” since the specification describes it as such a s paragraph [0014] of the as-filed specification, or whether P 2 O 5 is excluded from the list of oxides, Z, entirely. The terms “network-forming oxide”, “network-modifying oxide”, and “intermediate oxide” are interpreted in light of the classes described in the specification. The Office has interpreted the claim to allow Z to vary among any of the oxides listed in paragraphs [0014-0015]. The dependent claims are rejected for depending on claim 1. Claim 16 is rejected for referring to a “Z” which “is synonymous with the Z in the formula (I) in claim 1.” Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 – (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. Claims 1- 4, 6 -10, 15 , and 17 -18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Braga (US Patent No. 10,411,293 to Sousa Soares De Oliveira Braga et al.) . Regarding Claim 1 , Braga teaches: a noncrystalline ion conductor ( column 2 line 52) which can include Li 3 OCl (or a 50-50 Li 2 O-LiCl material) that is doped with what the instant specification calls a “network-modifying oxide” including CaO , MgO, SrO , and BaO , or wherein the halide can be whole or partly iodide (Column 8, lines 45-42) so, for example, an embodiment like Li 3-0.01 Mg 0.005 ClO in column 7 translates into (Li 1.498747 O 0.498747 Cl 0.501253 ) 0.9975 (MgO) 0.0025 Regarding Claims 2-3 , Braga teaches: y = 0.0025 in at least one embodiment Regarding Claim 4 , Braga teaches: x = 0.501523 Regarding Claim 6 , Braga teaches: embodiments where A is iodine (claim 1) Regarding Claim 7 , Braga teaches: a noncrystalline ion conductor (column 2 line 52) which can include Li 3 OCl (or a 50-50 Li 2 O-LiCl material) that is doped with what the instant specification calls a “network-modifying oxide” including CaO , MgO, SrO , and BaO , or wherein the halide can be whole or partly iodide (Column 8, lines 45-42) so, for example, an embodiment like Li 3-0.01 Mg 0.005 ClO in column 7 translates into (Li 1.498747 O 0.498747 Cl 0.501253 ) 0.9975 (MgO) 0.0025 amorphous and glassy phases (columns 11 and 12) Regarding Claim 8 , Braga teaches: amorphous glassy phase predominating (column 7 line 62) Regarding Claim 9 , Braga teaches: two phases, dispersed in each other (column 7) Regarding Claim 10 , Braga teaches: an electrode with the electrolyte (e.g. column 10) Regarding Claim 15 , Braga teaches: use in an all-solid-state battery (column 1) Regarding Claim s 17 and 18 , Braga teaches: iodide (examples with iodide and claim 1), y very small, and a network-modifying oxide (claim 1) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 . Claim s 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braga (US Patent No. 10,411,293 to Sousa Soares De Oliveira Braga et al.) in view of Ishioka (US 2019/0177207 to Ishioka et al.) . Regarding Claim 5 , Braga does not explicitly teach: doping with alumina, borate, silicate, etc. Ishioka, however, from the same field of invention, comprising a glass with lithium oxide, lithium halide, and boron trioxide (table 4), teaches that silicate, phosphate, and boron oxides were conventional oxides used to tune ionic properties in ionically conducting glasses. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. 398 (2007). It would have been obvious to use such components to dope the glasses of Braga, absent evidence of unexpected results. Regarding Claim 16 , Braga teaches: a noncrystalline ion conductor (column 2 line 52) which can include Li 3 OCl (or a 50-50 Li 2 O-LiCl material) that is doped with what the instant specification calls a “network-modifying oxide” including CaO , MgO, SrO , and BaO , or wherein the halide can be whole or partly iodide (Column 8, lines 45-42) so, for example, an embodiment like Li 3-0.01 Mg 0.005 ClO in column 7 translates into (Li 1.498747 O 0.498747 Cl 0.501253 ) 0.9975 (MgO) 0.0025 use of hydroxides and lithium halide in a mechanochemical preparation (column 9 lines 35-45) Braga does not explicitly teach: a lithium oxide as raw material Ishioka, however, from the same field of invention, regarding an ionically conducting glass with lithium halides, teaches that the raw materials are not particularly limited, and can includes oxides (¶ 0094). Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. 398 (2007). It would have been obvious to use lithium oxide in a mechanochemical preparation of the glasses of Braga since it was a known substitutable equivalent, absent evidence of unexpected results. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270- 7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner. /MICHAEL L DIGNAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1723