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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 1, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that Likozar does not meet the claim limitations, since Likozar discloses properties of a polymer composite and not the polymer itself (pp. 10-11). However, the composite additives are merely a means to modify the properties of the polymer. With the addition of the ionic liquid, the polymer of Likozar possesses the claimed properties.
Applicant contends that Stone teaches away from a modulus exceeding “a few MPa” (p. 11). This is incorrect. Stone teaches that a modulus approaching 6 GPa is desirable to prevent dendrite formation and that a low modulus (a few MPa) is typically required for an effective adhesive. The teachings of Stone are directed to the “resolution of the conflicting requirements of high modulus and interfacial adhesion” (final sentence of the Introduction).
Applicant contends that the teachings of Stone apply to the solid electrolyte itself and not a binder (p. 12). However, the polymer composite of Likozar is a solid electrolyte.
Applicant contends that Chen-yang does not meet the claim limitations, since Chen-yang discloses properties of a polymer composite and not the polymer itself (pp. 10-11). However, the composite additives are merely a means to modify the properties of the polymer. With the composite additives, the polymer of Chen-yang possesses the claimed properties.
The rejections are maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 51, 52, 56, and 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langer et al. (“Ceramic Polymer Hybrid Electrolyte Based on Li7La3Zr2O12 for Solid-State Batteries”, ECS Meeting Abstracts MA 2016-30 274, June 2016) in view of Likozar (“Diffusion of Ionic Liquids into Elastomer/Carbon Nanotubes Composites and Tensile Mechanical Properties of Resulting Materials”, Scientifica Iranica Transaction F: Nanotechnology 17(1), pp. 35-42, June 2010).
Regarding claim 51, Langer teaches a solid electrolyte composition comprising an inorganic solid electrolyte that conducts lithium ions (Li7La3Zr2O12) and a polymer binder (Langer 3rd paragraph).
Langer does not teach any particular polymer. Likozar teaches that a solid electrolyte composition comprising a cross-linked binder (HNBR) with an elongation at break of 378% and an elastic modulus (i.e., Young’s modulus) of 10.6 MPa (Likozar Table 3), each of which falls within the ranges of Condition 1 of the instant claim, has the high chemical and thermal resistance of NBR while also improving mechanical performance (Likozar Introduction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the polymer of Likozar in the solid electrolyte of Lang in order to achieve high chemical and thermal resistance as well as good mechanical performance.
Regarding claim 56, the composition of modified Langer comprises an ionic liquid and chloroform (Likozar Experimental, 2nd paragraph), each of which is a dispersion medium.
Regarding claim 52, Langer teaches a solid electrolyte sheet comprising an inorganic solid electrolyte that conducts lithium ions (Li7La3Zr2O12) and a polymer binder (Langer 3rd paragraph).
Langer does not teach any particular polymer. Likozar teaches that a solid electrolyte composition comprising a cross-linked binder (HNBR) with an elongation at break of 378% and an elastic modulus (i.e., Young’s modulus) of 10.6 MPa (Likozar Table 3), each of which falls within the ranges of Condition 1 of the instant claim, has the high chemical and thermal resistance of NBR while also improving mechanical performance (Likozar Introduction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the polymer of Likozar in the solid electrolyte of Lang in order to achieve high chemical and thermal resistance as well as good mechanical performance.
Regarding claim 60, modified Langer teaches that the material is intended for use in a solid-state lithium-ion battery (Langer first paragraph), which would necessarily include positive and negative electrode layers separated by a solid electrolyte, to replace a thin ceramic layer of LLZO electrolyte (Langer second paragraph), which would necessarily serve as the solid electrolyte layer to separate the electrodes.
Claim(s) 53 and 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langer in view of Likozar as applied to claims 51 and 52 above, and further in view of Stone et al. (“Resolution of the Modulus versus Adhesion Dilemma in Solid Polymer Electrolytes for Rechargeable Lithium Metal Batteries”, Journal of the Electrochemical Society 159(3), pp. A222-A227, December 2011).
Regarding claim 53, modified Langer teaches an elongation at break of 378% (Likozar Table 3), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Modified Langer does not teach a Young’s modulus of 0.2-2 GPa. Stone teaches that, in order to achieve both acceptable adhesion to the electrodes and resistance to dendrite formation, the Young’s modulus of a solid electrolyte must be balanced within the range of “a few MPa” to 6 GPa (Stone Introduction, 2nd paragraph), which overlaps the ranges of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any value within the range disclosed by Stone, including values within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 57, modified Langer teaches an elongation at break of 378% (Likozar Table 3), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Modified Langer does not teach a Young’s modulus of 0.2-2 GPa. Stone teaches that, in order to achieve both acceptable adhesion to the electrodes and resistance to dendrite formation, the Young’s modulus of a solid electrolyte must be balanced within the range of “a few MPa” to 6 GPa (Stone Introduction, 2nd paragraph), which overlaps the ranges of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any value within the range disclosed by Stone, including values within the range of the instant claim.
Claim(s) 54 and 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langer in view of Likozar as applied to claims 51 and 52 above and further in view of Chen-Yang et al. (“Polyacrylonitrile electrolytes: 1. A novel high-conductivity composite polymer electrolyte based on PAN, LiClO4 and α-Al2O3”, Solid State Ionics 153(3-4), pp. 327-335, October 2002).
Regarding claim 54, modified Langer does not teach any particular yield elongation. Chen-Yang teaches that a high yield elongation (225%) in composite polymer electrolytes allows for the formation of a good interface with electrodes (Chen-Yang Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a high yield elongation of approximately 225%, which falls within the range of the instant claim, in order to form a good interface with the electrodes.
Regarding claim 58, modified Langer does not teach any particular yield elongation. Chen-Yang teaches that a high yield elongation (225%) in composite polymer electrolytes allows for the formation of a good interface with electrodes (Chen-Yang Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a high yield elongation of approximately 225%, which falls within the range of the instant claim, in order to form a good interface with the electrodes.
Claim(s) 55 and 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langer in view of Likozar as applied to claims 51 and 52 above as evidenced by Varzi et al. (“Study of multi-walled carbon nanotubes for lithium-ion battery electrodes,” Journal of Power Sources 196(6), pp. 3303-3309, March 2011).
Regarding claim 55, the binder of modified Langer comprises multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) (Likozar Abstract). MWCNTs are an anode active material. See Varzi, 3.1. MWCNTs as active material for Li insertion.
Regarding claim 59, the binder of modified Langer comprises multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) (Likozar Abstract). MWCNTs are an anode active material. See Varzi, 3.1. MWCNTs as active material for Li insertion.
Claim(s) 61 and 62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langer in view of Likozar as applied to claims 51 and 52 above, and further in view of Pistorino et al. (US 2017/0187063 A1).
Regarding claim 61, modified Langer does not teach the use of LiPON as the inorganic solid electrolyte. Pistorino teaches that both LLZO and LiPON are suitable ceramic particles for use in a ceramic-polymer composite electrolyte (Pistorino [0015]). LLZO and LiPON are therefore art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose, and substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to substitute LiPON for the LLZO of modified Langer, since they are art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose.
Regarding claim 62, modified Langer does not teach the use of LiPON as the inorganic solid electrolyte. Pistorino teaches that both LLZO and LiPON are suitable ceramic particles for use in a ceramic-polymer composite electrolyte (Pistorino [0015]). LLZO and LiPON are therefore art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose, and substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to substitute LiPON for the LLZO of modified Langer, since they are art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose.
Claim(s) 51-53, 56, 57, 60, and 63-66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langer et al. (“Ceramic Polymer Hybrid Electrolyte Based on Li7La3Zr2O12 for Solid-State Batteries”, ECS Meeting Abstracts MA 2016-30 274, June 2016) in view of Kato et al. (US 2010/0035158 A1) and Stone et al. (“Resolution of the Modulus versus Adhesion Dilemma in Solid Polymer Electrolytes for Rechargeable Lithium Metal Batteries”, Journal of the Electrochemical Society 159(3), pp. A222-A227, December 2011).
Regarding claim 51, Langer teaches a solid electrolyte composition comprising an inorganic solid electrolyte that conducts lithium ions (Li7La3Zr2O12) and a polymer electrolyte binder (Langer 3rd paragraph).
Langer does not teach any particular polymer. Kato teaches that a solid electrolyte composition comprising a cross-linked binder (acrylate and methacrylate copolymers, i.e. acryl resins; Kato Table 1) has good ionic conductivity and excellent heat resistance and mechanical strength (Kato Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the polymer of Kato in the solid electrolyte of Lang in order to achieve good ionic conductivity and excellent heat resistance and mechanical strength.
Kato teaches that the polymer electrolytes have breaking elongations ranging from 17-1295% (Kato Table 12), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Modified Langer does not teach a Young’s modulus of 0.2-2 GPa. Stone teaches that, in order to achieve both acceptable adhesion to the electrodes and resistance to dendrite formation, the Young’s modulus of a solid electrolyte must be balanced within the range of “a few MPa” to 6GPa (Stone Introduction, 2nd paragraph), which overlaps the ranges of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 53, modified Langer teaches that the polymer electrolytes have breaking elongations ranging from 17-1295% (Kato Table 12), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Modified Langer does not teach a Young’s modulus of 0.2-2 GPa. Stone teaches that, in order to achieve both acceptable adhesion to the electrodes and resistance to dendrite formation, the Young’s modulus of a solid electrolyte must be balanced within the range of “a few MPa” to 6 GPa (Stone Introduction, 2nd paragraph), which overlaps the ranges of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any value within the range disclosed by Stone, including values within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 56, the composition of modified Langer comprises an ionic liquid (Kato Table 2), which is a dispersion medium.
Regarding claims 63 and 64, modified Langer teaches the use of acrylate and methacrylate copolymers (i.e. acryl resins; Kato Table 1)
Regarding claim 52, Langer teaches a solid electrolyte sheet comprising an inorganic solid electrolyte that conducts lithium ions (Li7La3Zr2O12) and a polymer binder (Langer 3rd paragraph).
Langer does not teach any particular polymer. Kato teaches that a solid electrolyte composition comprising a cross-linked binder (acrylate and methacrylate copolymers, i.e. acryl resins; Kato Table 1) has good ionic conductivity and excellent heat resistance and mechanical strength (Kato Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the polymer of Kato in the solid electrolyte of Lang in order to achieve good ionic conductivity and excellent heat resistance and mechanical strength.
Kato teaches that the polymer electrolytes have breaking elongations ranging from 17-1295% (Kato Table 12), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Modified Langer does not teach a Young’s modulus of 0.2-2 GPa. Stone teaches that, in order to achieve both acceptable adhesion to the electrodes and resistance to dendrite formation, the Young’s modulus of a solid electrolyte must be balanced within the range of “a few MPa” to 6 GPa (Stone Introduction, 2nd paragraph), which overlaps the ranges of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any value within the range disclosed by Stone, including values within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 57, modified Langer teaches that the polymer electrolytes have breaking elongations ranging from 17-1295% (Kato Table 12), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Modified Langer does not teach a Young’s modulus of 0.2-2 GPa. Stone teaches that, in order to achieve both acceptable adhesion to the electrodes and resistance to dendrite formation, the Young’s modulus of a solid electrolyte must be balanced within the range of “a few MPa” to 6 GPa (Stone Introduction, 2nd paragraph), which overlaps the ranges of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any value within the range disclosed by Stone, including values within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 60, modified Langer teaches that the material is intended for use in a solid-state lithium-ion battery (Langer first paragraph), which would necessarily include positive and negative electrode layers separated by a solid electrolyte, to replace a thin ceramic layer of LLZO electrolyte (Langer second paragraph), which would necessarily serve as the solid electrolyte layer to separate the electrodes.
Regarding claims 65 and 66, modified Langer teaches the use of acrylate and methacrylate copolymers (i.e. acryl resins; Kato Table 1)
Claim(s) 54, 58, and 67-70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langer in view of Kato as applied to claims 51, 52, and 63-66 above and further in view of Chen-Yang et al. (“Polyacrylonitrile electrolytes: 1. A novel high-conductivity composite polymer electrolyte based on PAN, LiClO4 and α-Al2O3”, Solid State Ionics 153(3-4), pp. 327-335, October 2002).
Regarding claim 54, 67, and 68, modified Langer does not teach any particular yield elongation. Chen-Yang teaches that a high yield elongation (225%) in composite polymer electrolytes allows for the formation of a good interface with electrodes (Chen-Yang Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a high yield elongation of approximately 225%, which falls within the range of the instant claim, in order to form a good interface with the electrodes.
Regarding claim 58, 69, and 70, modified Langer does not teach any particular yield elongation. Chen-Yang teaches that a high yield elongation (225%) in composite polymer electrolytes allows for the formation of a good interface with electrodes (Chen-Yang Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a high yield elongation of approximately 225%, which falls within the range of the instant claim, in order to form a good interface with the electrodes.
Claim(s) 61 and 62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langer in view of Kato as applied to claims 51 and 52 above, and further in view of Pistorino et al. (US 2017/0187063 A1).
Regarding claim 61, modified Langer does not teach the use of LiPON as the inorganic solid electrolyte. Pistorino teaches that both LLZO and LiPON are suitable ceramic particles for use in a ceramic-polymer composite electrolyte (Pistorino [0015]). LLZO and LiPON are therefore art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose, and substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to substitute LiPON for the LLZO of modified Langer, since they are art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose.
Regarding claim 62, modified Langer does not teach the use of LiPON as the inorganic solid electrolyte. Pistorino teaches that both LLZO and LiPON are suitable ceramic particles for use in a ceramic-polymer composite electrolyte (Pistorino [0015]). LLZO and LiPON are therefore art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose, and substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to substitute LiPON for the LLZO of modified Langer, since they are art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/J.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722