DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 11-12, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US 2017/0338522 A1, cited with the action of 03/27/2024)in view of Mori et al. (US 2002/0197536 A1, cited on the IDS of 01/04/2024) and further in view of Tamura et al. (JP H10294131 A, see enclosed machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Hu teaches a structure ([0030], [0031], Example 2 in [0089] to [0105], and fig 5(a)) comprising:
an electrode layer ([0091], fig. 5(a));
an inorganic solid electrolyte layer (specifically LLCZN garnet, see [0092], [0092], and fig. 5(a));
and a fluorine-containing polymer layer (PFPE-DMC (methylcarbonate-terminated perfluoropolyether) electrolyte) between the electrode (LFMO) layer and the inorganic solid electrolyte (LLCZN garnet) layer ([0091], [0096], [0098], fig. 5(a); see also [0040] and [0053] regarding PFPE-DMC),
the fluorine-containing polymer layer (PFPE-DMC electrolyte) containing a composite that contains a fluorine-containing polymer (PFPE-DMC) and an alkali metal salt (LiTFSI (lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide)), ([0091], [0096], [0098], fig. 5(a); see also [0040] and [0053] regarding PFPE-DMC, which is a fluorine containing polymer, and LiTFSI, which is a lithium salt, i.e. an alkali metal salt),
wherein the fluorine-containing polymer (PFPE-DMC) contains a heteroatom other than a fluorine atom and contains a fluorine atom in a backbone, such that the fluorine-containing polymer contains a structural unit CF2 which corresponds to claimed formula 1 ([0053]; methylcarbonate contains oxygen, which is a heteroatom other than a fluorine atom; PFPE contains CF2 groups along the backbone, such that a fluorine atom is contained in the backbone).
Hu teaches that PFPE as the fluorine-containing polymer, such that the fluorine-containing polymer contains a perfluoroalkylene group, which is explicitly excluded from the structure of claim 1. In other words, Hu fails to teach the limitation which recites “wherein the fluorine-containing polymer does not contain a structure represented by the formula: -(RaO)m-, wherein Ra is a perfluoroalkylene group, and m is an integer of 2 or more”. However, Hu also teaches that a variety of ion-conducting gel fluoropolymers may be selected as a fluorine-containing polymer, including polyvinylidene fluoride which does not contain an “-(RaO)m-” group and which is listed as an alternative for ([0040]). Hu further teaches the use of a copolymer such as poly(vinylidene)fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene ([0053]).
Mori teaches a gel electrolyte for a lithium battery which may be applied to any generally used separator ([0013], [0065]). Specifically, Mori teaches a fluorine-containing polymer containing a first structural unit (based on the monomer hexafluoropropylene and/or the monomer vinylidenefluoride) and a structural unit corresponding to claimed formula 2 (based on the monomer vinylpyrrolidone) as a host polymer for a gel electrolyte ([0081], [0095]). The polymer B of Mori does not contain a “-(RaO)m-” group ([0081]). The Examiner notes that the use of the monomers of “Synthesis Example 2” of Mori will result in a fluorine-containing polymer having first and second structural units wherein the second structural unit meets corresponds to formula 2 as set forth in instant claim 1 (as set forth in [0082] of the original instant specification, vinyl pyrrolidone corresponds to the claimed structural unit 2).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the fluorine-containing polymer of Mori for the fluorine-containing polymer of Hu. Such a person would have reasonably predicted the polymer of Mori to be a suitable substitute for the polymer of Hu, since Hu teaches that a variety of polymers may be used ([0040] of Hu), and since Mori teaches a polymer to be used for a gel electrolyte with a wide variety of separators ([0065] of Mori). Additionally, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP § 2143, B). Hu as modified by Mori teaches a fluoro-containing polymer containing a structural unit (1) which is based on hexafluoropropylene and/or the monomer vinylidenefluoride and a structural unit (2) being vinyl pyrrolidone, which is represented by claimed formula (2).
Tamura teaches a polymer electrolyte for a lithium battery ([0007]). Tamura further teaches that the polymer electrolyte is made of a copolymer containing vinylidene fluoride and perfluoro(alkyl vinyl ether), i.e. a fluorine-containing polymer ([0009]). Specifically, Tamura teaches monomers including tetrafluoroethylene as an alternative with vinyl fluoride, hexafluoropropylene and other monomers ([0011]). Tamura further teaches that relative amounts of vinylidene fluoride can be balanced with perfluoro (propyl vinyl ether), (see Formula 2 as an example) in order to achieve desired properties ([0012], [0014]).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) as taught by Tamura for the first structural unit 1 (vinylidenefluoride or hexafluoropropylene) in the fluorine-containing polymer of Hu modified by Mori. Such a person would have reasonably expected that TFE would be successful as the first structural unit of Hu modified by Mori, since Tamura teaches TFE as a copolymer for use in a lithium battery separator and further since Tamura teaches TFE as an alternative along with vinyl fluoride and hexafluoropropylene. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP § 2143, B).
Mori further teaches relative amounts of structural unit (1) and structural unit (2) by way of example ([0081]) where structural unit (2) is vinylpyrrolidone in 8.0 g which has a MW of 111.14 g/mol which equates to ~7.2 mol% which is within the claimed range for structural unit (2). Regarding structural unit (1), Mori further teaches hexafluoropropylene (as a non-limiting example, which Tamura renders obvious substitution to TFE by way of simple substitution as set forth above) representing structural unit (1) in 25 g ([0081]). Since TFE has a MW of 100.01 g/mol this equates to ~25 mol%, which is close to the claimed range of 36 to 99.9 mol%.
In addition, or alternatively, as discussed above, Tamura teaches perfluoro (propyl vinyl ether) is further balanced against vinylidene fluoride in order to achieve desired properties ([0012], [0014]), thus rendering obvious substitution of at least some of Mori’s vinylidene fluoride to perfluoro (propyl vinyl ether) regarding the claimed structural unit (1) amount.
Therefore, taken as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived to within the claimed “an amount of the structural unit (1) is 36 to 99.9 mol% and an amount of the structural unit (2) is 0.01 to 64 mol%” based on the teachings of Mori and Tamura in order to achieve a desired balance of properties and the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Regarding claim 11, modified Hu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Hu further teaches a battery comprising the structure ([0066], [0067], [0098]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Hu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Hu further teaches that the battery is an all-solid-state battery ([0031], [0090], [0098]; the battery of Hu is an all-solid-state battery since the electrolyte is solid so that the electrodes and electrolyte are all solid, see [0092]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Hu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Hu as modified by substituting the fluorine-containing polymer of Mori teaches that the functional group containing a heteroatom other than a fluorine atom is an amide group (based on the monomer vinylpyrrolidone, see [0081] of Mori; see also [0084] of the original instant specification).
Regarding claim 18, modified Hu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Hu as modified by substituting the fluorine-containing polymer of Mori and further modified by Tamura teaches that the structural unit (1) is tetrafluoroethylene ([0081] of Mori, [0011] of Tamura), and the structural unit (2) is based on vinylpyrrolidone, which is represented by the claimed formula (i), (see [0081] of Mori; see also [0083] and [0084] of the original instant specification; vinylpyrrolidone corresponds to formula (i) in the situation in which R1- and R2 are bonded to each other to form a ring).
Claim(s) 3 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US 2017/0338522 A1) in view of Mori et al. (US 2002/0197536 A1) and Tamura et al. (JP H10294131 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu et al., hereinafter "Wachsman", (US 2020/0112050 A1, cited with the action of 03/27/2024).
Regarding claims 3 and 19, modified Hu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above.
Hu teaches that the composite contains a polymer and a lithium salt and is located between the garnet (solid) electrolyte and the cathode ([0096]), but is silent as to the composite further containing an organic hetero-crystal.
Wachsman teaches a polymer electrolyte between a solid electrolyte (solid state electrolyte, SSE) and an electrode ([0183, fig. 1). Specifically, Wachsman teaches the addition of powders, such as succinonitrile (SCN) which is an organic hetero-crystal, being a plastic crystal containing a heteroatom N and a carbon atom, to improve ionic conductivity ([0010], [0248], [0274]).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added succinonitrile, as an organic hetero-crystal which is a plastic crystal containing a heteroatom N and a carbon atom, as taught by Wachsman to the composite of Hu, in order to improve the ionic conductivity of the composite of Hu (see [0010] and [0248] of Wachsman). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 7 of the Remarks filed 09/23/2025 that none of the documents relied by the Office teaches or fairly suggests the new claim amendment that has necessitated a new grounds of rejection: “an amount of the structural unit (1) is 36 to 99.9 mol% and an amount of the structural unit (2) is 0.01 to 64 mol%” and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reason/motivation to use the specifically claimed range of the structural unit (2).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons as cited in the above rejection.
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 JONATHAN G LEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1292. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 8am-5pm ET.
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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at 5712727769. 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.
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 1/2/2026