DETAILED ACTION
Citation to the Specification will be in the following format: (S. # : ¶/L) where # denotes the page number and ¶/L denotes the paragraph number or line number. Citation to patent literature will be in the form (Inventor # : LL) where # is the column number and LL is the line number. Citation to the pre-grant publication literature will be in the following format (Inventor # : ¶) where # denotes the page number and ¶ denotes the paragraph number.
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 .
Status of Application
The preliminary amendment dated 6/24/2024 has been received and will be entered.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are currently amended.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/24/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
I. Claim 5 – or as stated below – is/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 5 recites “the T halide is ZrCl4.” Use of the definite article “the” suggests “T halide” has been previously introduced in the claims. It has not. Stated differently, the language lacks antecedent basis. Inherent antecedent basis is not present, as Claim 1 refers to “T halides” with 6 halogen atoms.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102-103
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.
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.
I. Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 113363567 to Sun, et al. (cited by Applicants; H01M 10/0562; 09/07/2021) in view of:
(i) Saha, et al., Synthesis and elemental analysis of gadolinium halides (GdX3) in glass matrix for radiation detection applications, Optical Materials 2022; 129: 122490 (hereinafter “Saha at __”) to show a state of fact.
Citation is given to the machine translation accompanying this action.
With respect to Claim 1, this claim requires “[a] process for the preparation of a solid material according to general formula (I) as follows:
Li6-3x-myRExTyX6 (I)
wherein:
X is a halogen;
m is the valence of the element T
0<x+(m/3)y<2;
0≤y≤0.8;
RE denotes one or more rare earth metals; the rare earth metals are different from each other; and
T is selected from the group consisting of Zr, Hf, Al, Zn, Mg, Ca, Sr, Bi, Nb, Fe and Ta.”
Note that “y” can be equal to zero in formula (I). Thus, the “T” element is not required by the claim. There is no valence “m” for an element that is not required of the claim (i.e. m = 0 when y = 0). General formula (I) reduces to Li6-3xRExX6. The “0<x+(m/3)y<2” expression reduces to 0<x<2 when y=0.
Sun teaches at least Li3MX6, with M being on a rare earth element. (Sun at 2). This reads on general formula I, with x = 1.
Claim 1 further requires “the step of: a) dissolving lithium halide, at least one hydrated rare-earth metal halide and optionally T halide in a solvent to obtain a solution.” Lithium halides (LiX) and rare-earth metal halides (MX3) are dissolved in a solvent. (Sun at 2). Rare earth halides are well known hygroscopic materials that absorb water. Official notice is taken. In support of taking official notice, Saha is provided. See (Saha at 112490: “Rare earth halides are hygroscopic, which means they absorb moisture or water molecules from their surroundings.”). Saha was chosen for the conciseness of the teaching and is offered to show a scientific truism. As such, it need not antedate the priority date. MPEP 2124. In view of this truism, it is expected that the rare-earth metal halides of Sun contain waters of hydration.
As to Claim 3, the lithium halides are taught. (Sun at 4).
As to Claim 4, the discussion of Claim 1 is relied upon.
As to Claim 6, ethanol is taught. (Sun at 4).
As to Claim 7, ethanol is taught. Id.
As to Claim 11, stoichiometric amounts are employed. (Sun at 4 et seq.) (embodiments).
As to Claim 12, vacuum drying is taught. (Sun at 4).
As to Claim 13, calcining is taught. (Sun at 4-5).
As to Claim 14, a temperature of 450 C is taught. (Sun at 4).
As to Claim 15, an argon atmosphere is taught. Id.
II. Claim(s) 6 and 8 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113363567 to Sun, et al. (“Sun 567”) cited by Applicants; H01M 10/0562; 09/07/2021) in view of:
(i) Saha, et al., Synthesis and elemental analysis of gadolinium halides (GdX3) in glass matrix for radiation detection applications, Optical Materials 2022; 129: 122490 (hereinafter “Saha at __”) to show a state of fact, and further in view of:
(ii) CN 110137561 to Sun, et al. (cited by Applicants; H01M 10/10/0525; 08/16/2019)
The discussion accompanying “Rejection I” above is incorporated herein by reference.
Citation to Sun 567 is given to the machine translation accompanying this action. US 2022/0216507 to Sun, et al. (Sun 507) is relied upon as a translation of CN 110137561 to Sun, et al., to which citation is given.
As to Claim 6, while teaching alcohols, Sun 567 would not appear to teach ethers. In a similar process, Sun 507 employs ethers. (Sun 507 2: [0019]). Substition of ethers for alcohols is an obvious expedient, reflecting use of known materials to achieve predictable results. MPEP 2143; KSR.
As to Claim 8, THF is taught. (Sun 507 2: [0019]).
Allowable Subject Matter
I. Dependent upon rejected base claim
Claims 2, 9, and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6537. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9-6).
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, Anthony J. Zimmer can be reached on 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
