Application No.: 16/929,299
`
`Introduction
`
`REMARKS
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4-7 and 9 were pending, of which claims 1 and 5 are independent.
`
`No amendmenthas been madeto the claimsin this response. No new matter has been
`
`added.
`
`Entry of various comments regarding the claims and/orthe art, in the Office Action,
`
`should not be construed as any acquiescence or agreement by Applicants with the stated
`
`reasoning, regardless of whether or not these remarks specifically address any particular
`
`commentfrom the Office Action.
`
`Reconsideration of this application for allowanceofall pending claims is hereby
`
`respectfully requested in view of the claim amendmentand the following remarks.
`
`Patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4-7 and 9 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Tomita (JP 2006-244734) in view of Bohnsack(“Ternary Halides of the A3MX6 Type VII’) and
`
`Tomita (“Preparation of Substituted Compounds of Lithium Indium Bromide and Fabrication of
`
`All Solid-State Battery’, hereinafter cited as Tomita’2). Without conceding any correctness of
`
`the rejections, Applicant traverses these rejections for at least the following reasons.
`
`At a minimum,noneof the cited references disclose or suggest that M is Y or includes Y
`
`and at least one kind selected from the group consisting of Ca, Sr, Ba, Zr, and Al, as recited by
`
`claims 1 and 5. The Examinerasserted that Tomita discloses the electrolyte includes a solid
`
`electrolyte material consisting of Li, M, X and F and represented by Li3-2xMxIni-yM’ yLo-2L’z,
`
`wherein x is from 0 to 1.5; y is from 0 to 1; M is metal such as Ca, Sr, Ba and Mg; M’ can be Y;
`
`

`

`Application No.: 16/929,299
`
`and L’ and L are each independently halogen atoms([0036]-[0037]). The Examinerfurther
`
`asserted that when x=0 and y=1, the solid electrolyte material is L3YLezL’z with L and L’ being
`
`selected from the group consisting of halogen elements including F, Cl, I, Br and At, and 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 andI.
`
`In response to the previously filed Amendments, the Office Action conceded that Tomita
`
`fails to disclose y=1 in Li3-2xMixJdni-yM’ yLe6zL’z, where M is Y, and relied on Bohnsackasserting
`
`that Bohnsackdiscloses a lithium ion conductive solid electrolyte represented by the general
`
`formula A3MX¢including LizsMBre (where M = Sm-Lu, Y). The Office Action asserted that
`
`solid electrolytes of the form Lis3MX6 where M is solely Y (i.e., no In component) is known to
`
`have good lithium ion conductivity as taught by Bohnsack.
`
`However, Bohnsack doesnot disclose that LisMX¢ where M is solely Y shows a higher
`
`lithium ion conductivity than the case where In is included(y is not 1). Rather, paragraph [0038]
`
`of Tomita discloses “LizsInBre and Li3InBr3Cls are preferable among the compoundsrepresented
`
`by the above general formula,” which means Li3InBre and Li3InBr3Cls are better than Li3-
`
`2xMxIni-yM’yLe2L’z, where 0<y<1. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily
`
`understand that Li3InBre and Li3InBr3Cl3 have a higher Li ion conductivity than A3MX6 where M
`
`does not include In. As such, there is no motivation or suggestion to make y of Li3-2xMxIn1-
`
`yM’yLe6-zL’z in Tomita one (y=1). In addition, although Tomita and Bohnsackdisclose the use of
`
`Y, Tomita discloses Y as one of M’ including Fe, Nd, Co, An, Sb and Y, and Bohnsackdiscloses
`
`Y as one of the elements of Sm-Lu and Y. Thus, there is no specific reason as to whyY is
`
`particularly selected from both Tomita and Bohnsack, unless the present application is referred
`
`to, which is impermissible. However, the Office Action failed to explain why Y is particularly
`
`

`

`Application No.: 16/929,299
`
`selected.
`
`Basedon the foregoing, Applicant submits that claims 1 and 5 and all claims dependent
`
`thereon are patentable over the cited references.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Having fully respondedto all matters raised in the Office Action, Applicant submits that
`
`all claims are in condition for allowance, an indication for whichis respectfully solicited. If
`
`there are any outstanding issues that might be resolved by an interview or an Examiner’s
`
`amendment, the Examineris requested to call Applicant’s attorney at the telephone number
`
`shownbelow.
`
`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 500417 and please credit any excess fees to
`
`such deposit account.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`
`/Takashi Saito/
`
`Takashi Saito
`Registration No. 69,536
`
`Please recognize our Customer No. 53080
`as our correspondenceaddress.
`
`500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001-1531
`Phone: 202.756.8244 TS:
`Facsimile: 202.756.8087
`Date: July 12, 2023
`
`