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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/24/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 6-8 and 10 were rejected in the Office Action from 05/23/2025.
Applicant filed a response, amended claim 1 and added claim 23.
Claims 1-2 and 4-23 are currently pending in the application, of claims 2, 4-5, 9 and 11-22 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1, 6-8, 10 and 23 are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
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.
Claims 1, 6-8, 10 and 23 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.
Applicant amended claim 1 in an effort to overcome the previous 112(b) rejection however, the claim remains unclear, awkwardly phrased, and fails to clearly convey the essence of the invention. The recitation “A composite solid electrolyte comprising a composite film in the form of a non-woven fabric composed of composite fibers, which includes an ion conductive ceramic and a polymer, and a liquid electrolyte, wherein the composite film is produced by preparing a slurry by mixing the ion conductive ceramic and the polymer in a solvent, electrospinning the slurry to form the non-woven fabric, and subsequently impregnating the composite film with the liquid electrolyte.” is unclear for the following reasons, including but not limited to:
Unclear antecedent basis: the claim refers to “a composite film” before it is apparent how the film relates to the “non-woven fabric” formed by electrospinning.
Lack of clarity: between the non-woven fabric, the composite film, and the final composite electrolyte.
Ambiguous sequencing steps: leaving uncertainty about what structure exists at each stage of the process and what constitutes the claimed composite solid electrolyte.
As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably determine the metes and bound of claim 1.
To provide clarity and expedite the prosecution of the application, Applicant is advised to consider amendments that place the structural features first, followed by a clear description of how the composite electrolyte is produced. The following suggested/proposed amendments are provided as an example of a definite and clear claim structure:
Proposed Amendments
A composite solid electrolyte comprising:
a non-woven fabric composite film comprising an ion conductive ceramic and a polymer, and
a liquid electrolyte;
wherein the non-woven fabric composite film has a porosity of 50% to 300%, and
wherein the composite solid electrolyte is produced by mixing the ion conductive ceramic and the polymer in a solvent to produce a slurry, electrospinning the slurry to form the non-woven fabric composite film, and impregnating the nonwoven fabric composite film with the liquid electrolyte.
Since Applicant is attempting to impart structure in the composite electrolyte by how it is produced, particularly by impregnating liquid electrolyte in the composite film, it is recommended to incorporate the specifics of the porosity (from added claim 23) which is where electrolyte is absorbed, into independent claim 1 so it is clear how the structure of the composite solid electrolyte is modified by the process recited.
In view of the above, claim 1 does not meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the claim language, even as amended, does not clearly define the invention. Applicant may wish to amend the claim consistent with the proposed wording above or otherwise present amendments that directly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention.
In addition, Claim 1 recites “a composite solid electrolyte comprising…and, a liquid electrolyte”. This appears to be an internal contradiction and is unclear how the electrolyte is in a solid state but also includes a liquid state. It is not clear if a solid structure is impregnated with liquid or if there is a composite where liquid is confined inside the pores. The relationship between the solid portion and the liquid electrolyte is not clearly set forth, leaving the scope of the claim uncertain to one of ordinary skill.
Regarding dependent claims 6-8, 10 and 23, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 mainly recites what appears to be process steps for making a composite solid electrolyte. As such, the claim is considered a product-by-process claim. According to MPEP 2113, patentability of product-by-process claim is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production, only the structure implied by the process steps. Page 4, lines 25-28 of the instant specification, defines the composite solid electrolyte and is referenced to figure 2, which defines the structure as comprising a composite film having an ion conductive ceramic, a polymer and a liquid electrolyte. Accordingly, the structure of the claim that is given weight is interpreted as:
A composite solid electrolyte comprising: a non-woven fabric composite film comprising an ion conductive ceramic and a polymer, and a liquid electrolyte.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won et al. (KR20180032037A) and further in view of Kritzer (NPL, 20061). Alharizah et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0019457) is relied upon as an evidentiary reference.
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of KR20180032037A. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refer to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Won teaches a composite solid electrolyte (i.e., hybrid solid electrolyte) (title) comprising: a composite film (paragraph [0008]) including an ion conductive ceramic (paragraph [0021]), a polymer (paragraph [0021]), and a liquid electrolyte (paragraph [0021]). Won teaches forming a composite slurry into the composite film (paragraph [0015]). With regards to the electrospinning, as evidenced by Alharizah, such is a well-known and conventional method for applying a slurry (paragraph [0073]) for fuel cells, batteries, and separators (paragraph [0076]) which a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider an know to use.
Won does not explicitly articulate the composite film in the form of a non-woven fabric.
Kritzer, directed to a non-woven material (abstract), teaches a composite film in the form a non-woven material that includes a polymer and a ceramic is known to improve the mechanical behavior and safety of electrolytes and separators (abstract) (page 1336).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Won composite film to be in the form of a non-woven fabric as suggested by Kritzer, in order to improve mechanical behavior and safety of the electrolyte.
Regarding claim 6, Won teaches the amount of the liquid electrolyte absorbed into the composite film may be contained at a weight ratio of 60 to 100: 1 to 40 which overlaps the claimed range. The claimed range 50% to 300% of the liquid electrolyte to 100% of the composite film is equivalent to a ratio of 0.5:1 to 3:1. Won include for example, 60:30 or 80:40 which is equivalent to 2:1 and such ratio is within the claimed range.
It is noted that Won differ in the exact same range as recited in the instant claim however, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range of Won overlaps the instant claimed and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It has been held in the courts that 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 claims 7-8 and 10, Won teaches the absorbed liquid electrolyte is a lithium salt such as LiClO4, LiPF6, LiBF4, CF3SO2NLiSO2CF3 (LiTFSI), LiB (C2O4) 2, Li [N (SO2F) 2] (LiFSI), Li [B (C2O4) 2], LiAsF6 (paragraph [0029]) dissolved in an aqueous organic solvent such as carbonate, ester, ether, ketone, alcohol, and combinations thereof (paragraph [0030]).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won et al. (KR20180032037A) and further in view of Kritzer (NPL, 20062), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takami et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0083279).
Regarding claim 23, Won teaches the composite solid electrolyte as described above in claim 1 but is silent with regards to the specifics of the composite film having a porosity of 50%-300%.
Takami, in the same field of endeavor (i.e., batteries), teaches a battery including a non-woven fabric where a porosity of 60% allows a good impregnating ability of a nonaqueous electrolyte (paragraph[0098]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composite solid electrolyte including the non-woven fabric film of Won having a porosity of 60% or more in order to allow a good impregnating ability of the electrolyte.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed on 11/24/2025 are drawn to the claims as amended which as indicated above, are considered unclear and indefinite under 112(b). As such, the arguments are moot as the claims as amended have been interpreted to its best and fully mapped with the prior art of record. The applicant is encouraged to redraft the claims or at least amend them substantially to capture the essence of their invention more clearly.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ma et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0104720).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 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, MILTON I. CANO can be reached at 313-446-4937. 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.
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
1 Kritzer, Nonwoven support material for improved separators in Li-polymer batteries, Elsevier, 161, 2006, 1335-1340.
2/ Kritzer, Nonwoven support material for improved separators in Li-polymer batteries, Elsevier, 161, 2006, 1335-1340.