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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 8 are amended, claims 7 and 12-15 are canceled, and Claims 2-3, 5-6, 9-10, and 16-23 stand withdrawn. Claims 1, 4, 8 and 11, as filed 28 July 2025, are examined herein. No new matter is included.
Response to Arguments
The instant rejection is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments and remarks. A new rejection is made under 35 USC 112(b).
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that the molar ratio of 10:90 to 90:10 is not disclosed or suggested in Yokoyama or Adachi. Applicant further argues that the cited references teach that mixing two types of plastic crystal does not cause a problem, but do not teach a specific benefit or motivation for mixing two types of plastic crystal. This argument is moot in light of newly cited references, Kwon and Meng, which provide motivation for the suggested mixture and provide a mixture which falls within the claimed range.
Applicant further argues that the ion conductivity of the mixture is 3 orders of magnitude greater than that disclosed by the cited references. Applicant further argues that in the instant invention, the electrolyte doped with the plastic crystal as a matrix phase causes hopping conduction. These arguments are moot. The cited references render obvious the electrolyte composition of claim 1, and therefore that electrolyte will possess the claimed ion conductivity and also the (not claimed) hopping conduction.
Applicant further argues that in Adachi, the anions and cation of the room-temperature molten salt are the ion conductor. This argument is moot because the Adachi reference is withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Claim 1 contains a Markush group which is unclearly claimed. Claim 1 includes the limitation “A solid electrolyte comprising: a plastic crystal to which an electrolyte is doped and which at least includes a first plastic crystal and a second plastic crystal, wherein: the first plastic crystal and the second plastic crystal include different types of anions, the anion is selected from a group of a tris(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)methanide anion and various amide anions…” Referring to MPEP 2173.05(h), Examiner notes that a Markush group must use a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group "consisting of". The instant claim limitation is indefinite because it is not clear if the “a group of” as claimed is intended to be “open” or “closed”.
For the purpose of examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claim limitation is determined to include a first plastic crystal having an anion, and a second plastic crystal having a different anion from the first plastic crystal. Examiner notes that the limitation above does not require one of the anions to be tris(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)methanide anion. Examiner further notes that the term “various amide anions” is defined in the specification at [0014].
Claims 4, 8, and 11 stand rejected due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 4, 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yokoyama (JP 2016-139461A, with citations to the provided Espacenet translation), Kwon (KR 20140082042 A, with citations to the provided Espacenet translation), in view of Meng (WO 2006058465 A1, with citations to the provided Espacenet translation), and in further view of Abouimrane (US 20100119951 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Yokoyama teaches a solid electrolyte comprising ([0010] solid electrolyte):
a plastic crystal to which an electrolyte is doped, ([0030] “The lithium ion conductive plastic crystal according to the present invention is a complex of the above-mentioned plastic crystal and an ionic salt (lithium salt in this embodiment)”.
Yokoyama does not explicitly teach wherein the plastic crystal at least includes a first plastic crystal and a second plastic crystal and a mixture ratio of the first plastic crystal and the second plastic crystal is within a range of 10:90 to 90:10 in molecular ratio.
Kwon teaches [0001] a plastic crystal electrolyte doped with an ionic salt. At [0021] Kwon discloses “the polymer matrix is a material included to enhance the mechanical properties of an electrolyte for an electrochemical device, and may be specifically one or two or more compounds selected from the group consisting of oxide-based non-crosslinked polymers, polar non-crosslinked polymers, and crosslinked polymers having a three-dimensional network structure.” At [0026-0027] (emphasis added) “Additionally, the weight ratio of the ionic salt-doped plastic crystal electrolyte impregnated into the porous support: polymer matrix may be 30:70 to 90:10. That is, when the weight ratio of the plastic crystal electrolyte doped with the ionic salt is 30 to 90, the most effective ionic conductivity and stable mechanical properties can be obtained” - this falls within the claimed range.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify Yokoyama’s plastic crystal with the second polymer of Kwon, with a reasonable expectation of creating a plastic crystal with improved ion conduction.
Yokoyama in view of Kwon does not explicitly teach that the second polymer is also a plastic crystal.
Meng teaches [0002] a composite plastic crystal solid electrolyte for use in batteries. At [0016-0017] Meng discloses the mixture of two plastic crystals, “a molecularly mixed plastic crystal, which will significantly reduce the crystallinity of a single plastic crystal … defect sites for ion conduction are also significantly increased, which greatly improves the ion conductivity.” Referring to Table 1 of the original document, example 3 shows polymers A and A’ mixed in a 50:50 ratio, which meets the instant claim limitation.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify Yokoyama and Kwon’s plastic crystal with the second plastic crystal of Meng, with a reasonable expectation of creating a mixture of two plastic crystals with increased defect sites and therefore improved ion conduction.
Regarding the limitation the first plastic crystal and the second plastic crystal include different types of anions, the anion is selected from a group of a tris(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)methanide anion and a group of various amide anions, the amide anion is formed by substituting two hydrogen atoms of a NH2 anion with a perfluoroalkylsulfonyl group, a fluorosulfonyl group, or both, Yokoyama teaches [0023] that “known anions such as …, bisfluorosulfonylamide and bistrifluoromethanesulfonylamide, trifluorosulfonylimide (TFSI-), fluorosulfonylimide (FSI-), and bisperfluoroethylsulfonylimide (BETI-) can be combined”
Yokoyama does not explicitly provide a motivation for using two different types of anions.
Abouimrane discloses (abstract) an organic plastic crystal doped with LiBOB in combination with LiTFSI. FIG. 2 and [0054] discloses a mixture 2 mol% LiBOB in combination with 8 mol% LiTFSI providing higher ionic conduction than is achievable by either individual salt. Examiner notes that a salt is a combination of a cation and an anion. The selection of LiBOB in combination with LiTFSI includes two different anions.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select two different anions for use with the two different plastic crystals of modified Yokoyama, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving ion conductivity.
This also meets the limitation of claim 8, wherein a mixture ratio of the different types of anions is within a range of 20:80 to 80:20 in molecular ratio.
Regarding claim 4, Yokoyama in view of Kwon, Meng, and Abouimrane teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Yokoyama further teaches ([0023] “known anions such as …, bisfluorosulfonylamide”) This is a candidate within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives.
Regarding claim 11, Yokoyama in view of Kwon, Meng, and Abouimrane teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Yokoyama further teaches a power storage device comprising; and two electrodes facing each other via the solid electrolyte. ([0035] battery, positive electrode, negative electrode, separator layer)
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 CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on 571-270-1292. 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.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 11/10/2025