`Reply to Office Action of April 11, 2024
`
`Docket No.: 083710-3083
`
`Introduction
`
`REMARKS
`
`After entry of the foregoing amendments, claims 1-16 are pending in this application, of
`
`which claim 1
`
`is independent. Claims 8-14 were previously withdrawn from consideration
`
`pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b). By this response, claim 1 is amended and claim 16 is newly added
`
`herein. These amendments are made withoutprejudice or disclaimer of subject matter and without
`
`conceding the correctness of any rejections, and Applicant respectfully reserves the right to pursue
`
`the original, previously presented, or cancelled subject matter in this application or continuing
`
`applications. All amendments made to the claim and new claim are fully supported by, for
`
`example, claim 1 and paragraphs {00161 and [3018] of the specification as originally filed. Hence,
`
`no new matter has been introduced.
`
`Entry of various comments regarding the claims and/orthe art, in the Office Action, should
`
`not be construed as any acquiescence or agreement by Applicant with the stated reasoning,
`
`regardless of whether or not these remarks specifically address any particular commentfrom the
`
`Office Action.
`
`Reconsideration of this application for allowance of all pending claims is hereby
`
`respectfully requested in view of the amendmentsto the claims and following remarks.
`
`Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`1. Claims 1-7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
`Japanese Publication No. 2006244734 (“Tomita et al.”), in view of “Type AsMX6
`ternary halides Type V” (“Bohnsack”).
`
`Regarding claim 1, the cited references fail to teach the feature:
`
`“A solid electrolyte material represented by a composition formula LiaYpMeXe-aFa,
`where
`M includesat least one kind selected from the group consisting of metalloid elements and
`metal elements other than Li and Y;
`X 1s at least one kind selected from the group consisting of Cl, Br, and I;
`O<a;
`0<b;
`0 <c; and
`0<d<6.”
`
`The Office Action asserted that paragraphs [0006] and [0007] of Tomita teach a sold
`
`5
`
`
`
`Application No. 16/930,439
`Reply to Office Action of April 11, 2024
`
`Docket No.: 083710-3083
`
`electrolyte material represented by a composition formula Li3-2xMxIni-yM'yLezLz, where M and M'
`
`are metal elements. The Office Action interpretated that Tomita teachesa solid electrolyte material
`
`consisting of Li, M, X, and F, represented by Li3-2xMxIn1-yM'yLe-zLz, where 0<x<1.5, 0<y<1; M is
`
`a metal such as Ca, Sr, Ba, and Mg; M' can be Y; and L and L'are each independently halogen
`
`atoms (see, paragraphs [0036] and [0037] of Tomita). The Office Action asserted that when x=0
`
`and y>0, the solid electrolyte material consists of Li, M, X, and at least two halogen elements
`
`selected from F, Cl, I, Br, where M includes In, Y, and a metal such as Ca,Sr, Ba (AssertionI).
`
`The Office Action asserted that Tomita’s solid electrolyte material reads on the presently claimed
`
`composition whenat least one of L and L'is F with the other being any one of Br, Cl, and L
`
`Moreover, the Office Action asserted that Bohnsack teaches a lithium ion conductive
`
`solid electrolyte represented by the generally formula A2MX¢é(it appears to be A3MXe) including
`
`LisMBre (M=Y). Then, the Office Action asserted that it would have been obvious to modify
`
`Tomita’s composition wherein y=1 (Assertion IT) because solid electrolytes of the form Liz3MX¢6
`
`where M is Y, which is known to have goodlithium ion conductivity (see, 3. Results and
`
`Conclusion of Bohnsack).
`
`Applicant disagrees.
`
`Regarding Assertion I, Applicant submits that when x=0 and y>0, the composition
`
`formula of Tomita is Li3Ini-yM'yLe.zLz and the claimed M in claim 1 corresponds to In and M'. In
`
`this regard, the asserted M in Tomita includes In and M', where M' can be Y, Fe, Nd, Co, Zn, Sb,
`
`etc. (see, paragraph [0037] of Tomita). However, the asserted M in Tomita cannot be a metal
`
`such as Ca, Sr, Ba, because Ca, Sr, and Ba are included in M of Tomita rather than in M'of
`
`Tomita, and M is not present in Tomita (x=0). Therefore, the Assertion I is unreasonable.
`
`Since the Office Action considered x=0 and y>0 in Tomita, the composition formula of
`
`Tomita is Li3Ini-yM'yLezLz. The Office Action further asserted that y=1 (Assertion ID),
`
`Applicant submits that it is unreasonable to do so, because in Tomita, y cannot be 1 (0<y<1). It
`
`appears the Office Action intended to modify the composition formula of Tomita Li3Ini-yM'yLe.
`
`zLz into Li3YLezLz, where Le-zLz includes F andat least one of Cl, Br and I. Applicant submits
`
`that such a modification cannot be achieved, as y cannotbe 1.
`
`Assuch,claim 1 is not obvious overthe cited references. Therefore, claim 1 andall
`
`clams dependent thereon are patentable.
`
`
`
`Application No. 16/930,439
`Reply to Office Action of April 11, 2024
`
`New Claim
`
`Docket No.: 083710-3083
`
`Applicant believes that new claim 16 is patentably distinguishable over the applied
`
`referencesat least because of its dependency on claim 1. Favorable consideration of the new claim
`
`16 is respectfully solicited.
`
`Conclusion
`
`In view of the above amendments and remarks, Applicant submits that this application
`
`should be allowed and the case passed to issue.
`
`If there are any questions regarding this
`
`Amendmentor the application in general, a telephonecall to the undersigned would be appreciated
`
`to expedite the prosecution of the application.
`
`To the extent necessary, a petition for an extension of time under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 is
`
`hereby made. Please charge any shortage in fees due in connection with the filing of this paper,
`
`including extension of time fees, to Deposit Account 505992 and please credit any excess fees to
`
`such deposit account.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`RIMON,P.C.
`
`/Yanyan Wang/
`
`Yanyan Wang
`Registration No. 77,541
`
`8300 Greensboro Dr., Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`Phone: (571) 765-7724
`Date: July 8, 2024
`
`Please recognize our Customer No. 53080 as
`our correspondence address.
`
`