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 Objections
Claims 26-27, 34, 38 and 49-51 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 26, 27, 34 and 38 each recite, “the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte coated with an amphipathic surface protective agent” (emphasis added). Since it is understood that these claims reference the previous recited “an already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte coated with an amphipathic surface protective agent” of Claim 24, these claims should read “the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte coated with the amphipathic surface protective agent” (emphasis added).
Claim 27 contains a typographical error. The limitation, “wherein a film comprising the the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte…” (emphasis added) should read, “wherein a film comprising the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte…”.
Each of Claims 49, 50 and 51 recite, “The material of claim 45”. However, Claim 45 has been amended to recite “A dry material”. Therefore, to increase clarity, Claims 49, 50, and 51 should each recite “The dry material of claim 45” (emphasis added).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 19-21, 24, 26-29,32-34,37-45 and 47-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 recites, “and wherein the material is in a dry film shape, a dry particle form, or a dry pellet” (emphasis added). Similarly, Claim 45 recites “A dry material” (emphasis added). Although the instant specification supports that the material is subjected to “vacuum drying” (Pg. 10, lines 21-24), the instant specification does not appear to support that the resulting material is dry. In other words, although the Examiner acknowledges that the instant specification supports that the material goes through the process of drying, the instant specification does not indicate that the resulting product is free from solvent (i.e. dry). Indeed, the instant specification indicates that the sulfide-containing solid electrolyte powders are covered in solvent (e.g. 1-bromopentane; see Pg. 10, lines 24-28; Fig. 1). Therefore the amended claims, which recite a “dry” material, are interpreted as introducing new matter. Accordingly, Claim 19 and dependent Claims 20-21, 28-29, 37, 39, 41 and 43, and Claim 45 and dependent Claims 49-51 are rejected as introducing new matter.
Claims 24 and 47 each recite, “wherein the construct is a solid-state construct” (emphasis added). While the instant specification supports a construct formed by sandwiching a cathode, a solid-state electrolyte coated with an amphipathic surface protective agent, and an anode (Pg. 9, line 24 – Pg. 10, line 15), the instant specification does not appear to support that the construct is a solid-state construct. Specifically, although the instant specification suggests that the construct could be used to form a solid-state battery (Pg. 1, lines 15-25; Pg. 5, lines 28-30; Pg. 8, lines 4-6; Pg. 9, lines 6-13), the instant specification also indicates that the amphipathic surface protective agent is removed before assembling the construct into a cell (Pg. 10, lines 13-15). Since the amphipathic surface protective agent is understood to include liquids (e.g. 1-bromopentane; see Pg. 10, lines 19-28; Fig. 1), a construct which includes the amphipathic surface protective agents (as claimed in Claims 24 and 47) is understood to include solvent. Accordingly, the instant specification does not appear to support that the construct itself “is a solid-state construct” which is understood as precluding the presence of any liquid components. As such, Claims 24 and 47, and dependent Claims 26-27, 32-34, 38, 40, 42, 44 and 48 are rejected as introducing new matter.
Claim 52 recites the limitation, “an already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte having a solid coating layer of an amphipathic surface protective agent” (emphasis added). Although the instant specification indicates that a solid-state electrolyte is covered with an amphipathic surface protective agent (Pg. 7, lines 6-8; Pg. 10, lines 21-28), the instant specification does not appear to support that the coating layer is a “solid” coating layer. Specifically, although the instant specification indicates that a liquid solvent can be attached to the surface of a sulfide-containing solid-electrolyte via Van der Waals forces (Pg. 10, lines 21-28), the instant specification does not appear to indicate that the coating layer is a solid coating layer, which appears to require a change in state from liquid to solid. The Examiner further notes that the instant specification discloses that the liquid solvent surface protective agent (e.g. 1-bromopentane) can be released from the surface of the sulfide-containing solid electrolyte via heating (Pg. 10, lines 25-28), thereby further evidencing that the liquid solvent surface protective agent remains in a liquid state, and can be removed by increasing the heat above the boiling point of the liquid. Accordingly, Claim 52 and dependent Claim 53 are rejected as introducing new matter.
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 19-21, 24, 26-29,32-34,37-45 and 47-53 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.
Claim 19 recites, “and wherein the material is in a dry film shape, a dry particle form, or a dry pellet” (emphasis added). Similarly, Claim 45 recites “A dry material”. The term “dry” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation, since no special definition is provided in the instant specification. Accordingly, “dry” is understood to mean “free from liquid or moisture” as evidenced by The American Heritage Dictionary. However, the claim indicates that the material is coated in an amphipathic surface protective agent, which is understood to be or encompass a multitude of liquids. For instance, in Claim 19 it appears that all of the listed amphipathic surface protective agents are liquids at room temperature. Although Claim 45 is open to some amphipathic surface protective agents which are a gas at room temperature (e.g. CH3Cl), the majority of amphipathic surface protective agents encompassed by Claim 45 are liquids at room temperature, and dependent Claim 51 further limits the protective agents of Claim 45 to liquids.
Therefore, in light of the claims and instant specification (see Pg. 10, lines 21-28; Fig. 1), it appears that Applicant envisions a special definition of “dry”, which is contrary to its ordinary meaning. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Since the instant application indicates that the “material” includes structures wherein a solid is coated with a liquid (see Pg. 10, lines 21-28; Fig. 1), it could be interpreted that Applicant intends the term “dry” in Claims 19 and 45 to mean “free from water”, thereby allowing for solvent (e.g. the solvent attached to the surface of the solid-state electrolyte) to be included in the material. It could further be interpreted that Applicant intends for the term “dry” to mean that the material “goes through a drying process”, thereby precluding excess free solvent, but allowing for solvent to be attached to the surface of the solid-state electrolyte. Since the accepted meaning of “dry” is “free from liquid or moisture” as evidenced by The American Heritage Dictionary, the term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Accordingly, Claim 19 and dependent Claims 20-21, 28-29, 37, 39, 41 and 43, and Claim 45 and dependent Claims 49-51 are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, the term “dry” is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as “free of water” (i.e. moisture), as supported by both the American Heritage Dictionary.
Claims 24 and 47 each recite, “wherein the construct is a solid-state construct” (emphasis added). The term “is” is understood to represent closed-ended language, thereby precluding the presence of additional elements, such as liquids (see MPEP 2111.03). However, the amphipathic surface protective agent recited by the claims include various liquids, and a dependent claim requires the amphipathic surface protective agent to be 1-bromopentane (see dependent Claim 40). Accordingly, the meaning of a construct which “is” a solid-state construct is unclear. It could be interpreted that the construct includes solid-state components (e.g. a solid-state electrolyte), or it could be interpreted that Applicant is envisioning a special definition of “solid-state” which allows for a degree of liquid to be present (e.g. a construct wherein the majority of the construct is solid-state). Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
As such, Claims 24 and 47, and dependent Claims 26-27, 32-34, 38, 40, 42, 44 and 48 are rejected as being indefinite. Although the instant specification supports that the majority of the construct is solid-state (Pg. 9, line 12 – Pg. 10, line 15), the instant specification does not provide a special definition of solid-state. Accordingly, the first interpretation will be applied to the claims, as supported by the instant specification (Pg. 8, lines 4-6). Accordingly, it will be interpreted that “a solid-state construct” is one which includes solid-state components, such as a solid-state electrolyte.
Claim 45 recites, “A dry material comprising an already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte surface and an amphipathic surface protective agent deposited on the electrolyte surface, wherein the already-formed sulfide containing solid-state electrolyte material is…” (emphasis added). Examiner notes that Claim 45 has been amended such that the antecedent basis provided is for an electrolyte “surface”. Accordingly, there is no antecedent basis provided for an “electrolyte material” as recited in Claim 45, and it is unclear what material is referenced. As such, Claim 45 and dependent Claims 49-51 are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that Claim 45 should recite “A dry material comprising an already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte material comprising a surface and an amphipathic surface protective agent deposited on the electrolyte surface, wherein the already-formed sulfide containing solid-state electrolyte material is…” (emphasis added), as supported by similar wording in other claims (e.g. Claim 47).
Claim 52 recites the limitation, “an already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte having a solid coating layer of an amphipathic surface protective agent” (emphasis added). Here, the meaning of a “solid” coating layer is unclear. It could be interpreted that Applicant intends for the coating to be in a solid form, or it could be interpreted that Applicant intends for the coating to be a continuous coating layer. As such, Claim 52 and dependent Claim 53 are rejected as being indefinite. The Examiner notes that a “continuous” layer is previous recited in the claims (e.g. see Claims 41-42), thereby appearing to suggest that Applicant intends for a “solid coating layer” to have a distinct meaning from a “continuous layer”. However, as discussed above (see 112(a) rejection of Claim 52), the instant specification does not support that the coating layer is in a solid form, instead indicating that the coating layer is comprised of a liquid solvent anchored to the surface of a sulfide-containing solid electrolyte via Van der Waals forces (see Pg. 10, lines 19-28; Fig. 1). Therefore for the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that “a solid coating layer” is a “continuous coating layer”.
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) 19-21, 24, 26-27, 32, 37-45 and 47-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anandan et al. (US-20170263975-A1) in view of Wang et al. (US-20060216613-A1).
Regarding Claims 19-20, 24 and 32, Anandan discloses a hybrid electrolyte comprising a plurality of solid electrolyte particles dispersed in a liquid electrolyte solution [0007]. The solid electrolyte can be selected from a list of general candidates, including Li10GeP2S12 [0019].
Therefore, although Anandan does not disclose a specific example wherein the solid electrolyte is selected to be Li10GeP2S12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the solid electrolyte to be Li10GeP2S12 with a reasonable expectation that such a selection would result in a successful hybrid electrolyte. The use of Li10GeP2S12 as the solid electrolyte material corresponds to “an already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte” as required by Claims 19 and 24. The use of Li10GeP2S12 is also within the list of claimed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolytes as recited in Claim 20 and Claim 32.
Anandan discloses that the hybrid electrolyte includes a plurality of solid electrolyte particles dispersed in a liquid electrolyte comprising a lithium salt and an organic solvent [0018-0019]. As the liquid electrolyte, “any suitable lithium salt and organic solvent combination can be used” [0018]. As a potential embodiment of the organic solvent, Anandan discloses ethylene carbonate (EC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), or diethyl carbonate (DEC) [0018]. Anandan does not teach that the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte is coated with an amphipathic surface protective agent.
Wang teaches a nonaqueous electrolytic solvent including a lithium salt and a nonaqueous electrolyte [0039, 0041-0043]. The nonaqueous solvent can include, from a list of possible candidates, carbonate based compounds such as ethylene carbonate (EC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), halogenated hydrocarbon-based compounds, and a mixture of two or more [0042]. Examiner notes that this establishes halogenated hydrocarbon-based solvents as a substitutable alternative to carbonate-based solvents (MPEP 2144.06, II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added a halogenated hydrocarbon-based solvent instead of or in addition to the carbonate-based solvents disclosed by Anandan with a reasonable expectation that the use of a halogenated hydrocarbon-based solvent would result in a successful organic solvent capable of dissolving a lithium salt (MPEP 2144.06, I-II; MPEP 2144.07).
Although modified Anandan does not specifically teach that the hydrocarbon-based solvent is one of the claimed halogenated hydrocarbons (i.e. “1-bromopentane, 2-Bromopentane…”), the selection of the claimed amphipathic compounds is within the scope of “halogenated hydrocarbons” such that, absent persuasive evidence or argument to the contrary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any of the claimed amphipathic compounds with a reasonable expectation that such a selection would result in a successful hybrid electrolyte (MPEP 2144.08). Examiner further notes that many of the claimed halogenated hydrocarbons are commercially available (e.g. via MilliporeSigma) thereby evidencing their common use.
The organic solvent rendered obvious by modified Anandan corresponds to an “amphipathic surface protective agent”. Since modified Anandan renders obvious that the solid electrolyte is dispersed in the liquid electrolyte which includes the organic solvent [Anandan: 0018-0019], it is understood that the organic solvent surrounds the solid electrolyte, thereby inherently coating the solid electrolyte in the amphipathic surface protective agent (MPEP 2112.01, I), as evidenced by the instant specification. Specifically, the instant specification evidences that the surface protection agent can be a liquid which is applied to the solid electrolyte surface via physical stir-mixing (instant specification: Pg. 7, lines 26-30; Pg. 8, lines 1-3; Pg. 10, lines 21-28), and that the amphipathic surface protective agent is “anchored on the surface of the SSE via Van der Waals force, forming an ultra-thin layer of protecting interphase” (instant specification: Pg. 5, lines 14-16).
Since the prior art renders obvious a substantially similar product, it is understood that the amphipathic surface protective agent inherently coats the surface of the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte surface (MPEP 2112.01, I) as required by Claims 19 and 24.
The use of an already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte coated with an amphipathic surface protective agent as laid out above corresponds to the recited limitation of “a material” as recited in Claim 19. Although modified Anandan does not explicitly teach “wherein the material is in a dry film shape, a dry particle form, or a dry pellet” as required by Claim 19, Anandan discloses that the solid electrolyte material is provided in a particle form (i.e. solid electrolyte particles; [0019, 0027]), and modified Anandan renders obvious that the solvent of the liquid electrolyte is an organic solvent (see above; [Anandan: 0014, 0018]). Since modified Anandan renders obvious a material in a particle form, and renders obvious an organic (i.e. nonaqueous) solvent, modified Anandan is understood to render obvious a material in a “dry particle form” as required by Claim 19. Here, the term “dry” is broadly and reasonable interpreted as “free of water” (see 112(b) rejection of Claim 19, above).
Anandan further discloses a construct (rechargeable battery; [0007]) comprising a cathode material; and an anode material [0007, 0016] as required by Claim 24. Although modified Anandan does not explicitly teach that “the construct is a solid-state construct” as required by Claim 24, modified Anandan discloses that the construct comprises solid electrolyte particles [0007, 0018], which is interpreted (see 112(b) rejection of Claim 24, above) as reading on “wherein the construct is a solid-state construct” as required by Claim 24.
Regarding Claims 21 and 27, modified Anandan renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Anandan discloses that the cathode and anode can be applied to a respective current collector to form a uniform electrode [0016-0017]. The electrodes are depicted as thin layers on the current collector surfaces (see Fig. 1). Therefore, absent a special definition provided in the instant specification, it is interpreted that the secondary battery includes a film comprising the cathode and a film comprising the anode as required by Claim 27 and as evidenced by the Oxford’s Learner’s Dictionary, which defines film as “a thin layer of something, usually on the surface of something else”.
Although modified Anandan does not specifically teach that the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte coated with the amphipathic surface protective agent is in a film shape, Anandan discloses an alternative embodiment wherein the solid electrolyte (40, Fig. 2) can be embedded into the separator (38, Fig. 2) [0028-0029].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have embedded the solid electrolyte into the separator with a reasonable expectation that embedding the solid electrolyte into the separator would result in a successful secondary battery. By embedding the solid electrolyte into the separator, the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte coated with the amphipathic surface protective agent is therefore provided “in a film shape” (i.e. as a thin layer) as required by Claim 21. The film comprising the solid electrolyte is interposed between the anode and the cathode [0024, 0028-0029] as required by Claim 27.
Regarding Claim 26, modified Anandan renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Anandan further discloses that the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte (24, Fig. 1) coated with the amphipathic surface protective agent is interposed between the cathode material (14, Fig. 1) and the anode material (12, Fig. 1) [0018-0019, 0023].
Regarding Claim 37-38, modified Anandan renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte is Li10GeP2S12 (see rejection of Claims 20 and 32, above), and that the surface of the sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte is coated with the amphipathic surface protective agent (see rejection of Claims 19 and 24 above). Since modified Anandan renders obvious the use of the same sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte as claimed, and since modified Anandan renders obvious amphipathic surface protective agents which overlap in scope with those claimed, the material/construct are understood to be air stable (MPEP 2112.01, I-II) as evidenced by the instant specification (instant specification: Pg. 5, lines 8-20, 28-32; Pg. 6, lines 1-3; Pg. 7, lines 12-20).
Regarding Claims 39-40, modified Anandan renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including the use of a halogenated hydrocarbon as the amphipathic surface protective agent (see rejection of Claims 19 and 24, above). Although modified Anandan does not specifically teach that the halogenated hydrocarbon is 1-bromopentane, the selection of 1-bromopentane is within the scope of “halogenated hydrocarbons” such that, absent persuasive evidence or argument to the contrary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected 1-bromopentane with a reasonable expectation that such a selection would result in a successful hybrid electrolyte (MPEP 2144.08). The Examiner further notes that 1-bromopentane is commercially available (e.g. via MilliporeSigma), thereby evidencing its common use.
Regarding Claims 41-44, modified Anandan renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Since modified Anandan renders obvious a material/construct which is substantially similar to that disclosed in the instant application, it is understood that the amphipathic surface protective agent inherently forms a continuous layer of uniform thickness on the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte surface (MPEP 2112.01, I) as evidenced by the instant specification. Specifically, the instant specification discloses that the amphipathic surface protective agent is anchored on the surface of the SSE via Van der Waals force, forming an ultra-thin layer of protecting interphase (instant specification: Pg. 5, lines 14-16), and that the surface protection layer forms a continuous layer of uniform thickness of the SSE surface, wherein the layer has a thickness of ≥0.1 nm (instant specification: Pg. 7, lines 6-8). Since the prior art renders obvious a material/construct which is coated with an amphipathic surface protective agent, it is understand that the protective agent would inherently attach via Van der Waals force to the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte surface, forming a continuous layer of uniform thickness as required by Claims 41-42, wherein the thickness is ≥0.1 nm as required by Claims 43-44.
Regarding Claims 45, 47-48 and 52, Anandan discloses a hybrid electrolyte comprising a plurality of solid electrolyte particles dispersed in a liquid electrolyte solution [0007]. The solid electrolyte can be selected from a list of general candidates, including Li10GeP2S12 [0019].
Therefore, although Anandan does not disclose a specific example wherein the solid electrolyte is selected to be Li10GeP2S12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the solid electrolyte to be Li10GeP2S12 with a reasonable expectation that such a selection would result in a successful hybrid electrolyte. The use of Li10GeP2S12 as the solid electrolyte material corresponds to “an already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte”, and is within the list of claimed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolytes as required by Claims 45, 47 and 52.
Anandan discloses that the hybrid electrolyte includes a plurality of solid electrolyte particles dispersed in a liquid electrolyte comprising a lithium salt and an organic solvent [0018-0019]. As the liquid electrolyte, “any suitable lithium salt and organic solvent combination can be used” [0018]. As a potential embodiment of the organic solvent, Anandan discloses ethylene carbonate (EC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), or diethyl carbonate (DEC) [0018]. Anandan does not teach that the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte is coated with an amphipathic surface protective agent.
Wang teaches a nonaqueous electrolytic solvent including a lithium salt and a nonaqueous electrolyte [0039, 0041-0043]. The nonaqueous solvent can include, from a list of possible candidates, carbonate based compounds such as ethylene carbonate (EC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), an ether-based compound, a halogenated hydrocarbon-based compound, or a mixture of two or more [0042]. The Examiner notes that this establishes ether-based compounds and halogenated hydrocarbon-based solvents as a substitutable alternative to carbonate-based solvents (MPEP 2144.06, II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added an ether-based solvent with the general formula R1OR2, wherein R1 and R2 are each independently CxH2x+1 (x≥1) and/or a halogenated hydrocarbon-based solvent with the general formula CyH2y+1X, wherein (X = Cl, Br, I) and (y≥1) instead of or in addition to the carbonate-based solvents disclosed by Anandan with a reasonable expectation that the use of an ether-based solvent and/or a halogenated hydrocarbon-based solvent would result in a successful organic solvent capable of dissolving a lithium salt (MPEP 2144.06, I-II; MPEP 2144.07).
The organic solvent rendered obvious by modified Anandan corresponds to an “amphipathic surface protective agent”. Since modified Anandan renders obvious that the solid electrolyte is dispersed in the liquid electrolyte which includes the organic solvent [Anandan: 0018-0019], it is understood that the organic solvent surrounds the solid electrolyte, thereby inherently coating the solid electrolyte in the amphipathic surface protective agent (MPEP 2112.01, I), as evidenced by the instant specification. Specifically, the instant specification evidences that the surface protection agent can be a liquid which is applied to the solid electrolyte surface via physical stir-mixing (instant specification: Pg. 7, lines 26-30; Pg. 8, lines 1-3). The instant specification further evidences that the amphipathic surface protective agent is “anchored on the surface of the SSE via Van der Waals force, forming an ultra-thin layer of protecting interphase” (instant specification: Pg. 5, lines 14-16), and that the surface protection layer forms a continuous layer of uniform thickness on the SSE surface, wherein the layer has a thickness of ≥0.1 nm (instant specification: Pg. 7, lines 6-8).
Since the prior art renders obvious a substantially similar product, it is understood that the protective agent inherently attaches via Van der Waals forces to the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte surface, forming a continuous layer as required by Claims 47 and 52 (i.e. “a solid coating layer”; see 112(b) rejection of Claim 52, above) and a layer of uniform thickness as required by Claim 47, wherein the thickness is ≥0.1 nm as required by Claim 48 (MPEP 2112.01, I).
The use of an already-formed sulfide-containing solid state electrolyte coated with an amphipathic surface protective agent as laid out above corresponds the recited limitation of a material as recited in Claims 45 and 52.
Although modified Anandan does not explicitly teach a “dry” material as required by Claim 45, modified Anandan renders obvious that the solvent of the liquid electrolyte is an organic solvent (see above; [Anandan: 0014, 0018]). Since modified Anandan renders obvious an organic (i.e. nonaqueous) solvent, modified Anandan is understood to render obvious a “dry” material as required by Claim 45. Here, the term “dry” is broadly and reasonable interpreted as “free of water” (see 112(b) rejection of Claim 45, above).
Anandan further discloses a construct (rechargeable battery; [0007]) comprising a cathode material; and an anode material [0007, 0016] as required by Claim 47. Although modified Anandan does not explicitly teach that “the construct is a solid-state construct” as required by Claim 47, modified Anandan discloses that the construct comprises solid electrolyte particles [0007, 0018], which is interpreted (see 112(b) rejection of Claim 47, above) as reading on “wherein the construct is a solid-state construct” as required by Claim 47.
Regarding Claims 49-50, modified Anandan renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above. The Examiner notes that the limitations of Claims 49 and 50 constitute product-by-process limitations (see MPEP 2113). Although the structure implied by the process in considered, patentability is based on the product itself. “If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (MPEP 2113, I). The instant specification indicates that the resulting structure of the claimed processes is a solid-state electrolyte (SSE) coated with a surface protective agent which is attached to the surface of the SSE via Van der Waals forces (instant specification: Pg. 10, lines 21-28). The instant specification indicates that there is no criticality to the method in which the surface protective agent is deposited onto the surface of the SSE, and that stir-mixing, spraying, chemical vapor deposition, molecular layer deposition and/or atomic layer deposition can be used interchangeably (instant specification: Pg. 7, lines 26-30).
Therefore, although modified Anandan does not explicitly teach that the amphipathic surface protective agent is deposited “via mixing a liquid of the amphipathic surface protective agent with a powder of the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte and drying the mixture” as required by Claim 49, the structure implied by the claimed process (i.e. a SSE powder coated with an amphipathic surface protective agent) is rendered obvious by the prior art (see rejection of Claim 45, above). Thus the limitations of Claim 49 are met.
Similarly, although modified Anandan does not explicitly teach that the amphipathic surface protective agent is deposited “via spraying, chemical vapor deposition, molecular layer deposition, atomic layer deposition, or a combination thereof” as required by Claim 50, the structure implied by the claimed process (i.e. a SSE powder coated with an amphipathic surface protective agent) is rendered obvious by the prior art (see rejection of Claim 45, above). Thus the limitations of Claim 50 are met.
Regarding Claim 51 and 53, modified Anandan renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that an ether-based solvent and/or a halogenated hydrocarbon-based solvent can be used in the liquid electrolyte (see rejection of Claims 45 and 52, above).
Although modified Anandan does not specifically teach that the liquid electrolyte includes one of the claimed halogenated hydrocarbons (i.e. “1-bromopentane, 2-Bromopentane…”), the selection of the claimed amphipathic compounds is within the scope of “halogenated hydrocarbons” such that, absent persuasive evidence or argument to the contrary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any of the claimed amphipathic compounds with a reasonable expectation that such a selection would result in a successful hybrid electrolyte (MPEP 2144.08). Examiner further notes that many of the claimed halogenated hydrocarbons are commercially available (e.g. via MilliporeSigma) thereby evidencing their common use.
Claim(s) 28-29 and 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anandan et al. (US-20170263975-A1) in view of Wang et al. (US-20060216613-A1) as applied to Claims 19 and 24 and in view of Baecker et al. (US-20190181498-A1).
Regarding Claims 28 and 33, modified Anandan renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Although modified Anandan renders obvious the use of Li10GeP2S12 as the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte, Anandan further discloses that the solid electrolyte can be “formed of any suitable solid electrolyte material (e.g. as solid material that allows the movement of ions via hopping/jumping through a crystal system)” [0019]. Anandan does not specifically teach that the solid electrolyte is Li7P2S8X wherein X = Cl, Br, I, and/or F.
Baecker teaches a thin film of solid electrolyte that can be applied towards secondary batteries [0001-0003, 0009]. Baecker teaches that nonlimiting examples of solid electrolytes include Li10GeP2S12 and Li7P2S8I among other candidates [0042]. Examiner notes that this establishes Li7P2S8I as a suitable substitutable solid electrolyte for Li10GeP2S12 for use in secondary batteries (MPEP 2144.06, II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the Li10GeP2S12 solid electrolyte material rendered obvious by Anandan for Li7P2S8I with a reasonable expectation that such a substitution would result in a successful already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte for use in a secondary battery (MPEP 2144.06, II). The use of Li7P2S8I is within the claimed materials recited by Claims 28 and 33 (i.e. X = I).
Regarding Claims 29 and 34, modified Anandan renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Anandan discloses that the cathode and anode can be applied to a respective current collector to form a uniform electrode [0016-0017]. The electrodes are depicted as thin layers on the current collector surfaces (see Fig. 1). Therefore, absent a special definition provided in the instant specification, it is interpreted that the secondary battery includes a film comprising the cathode and a film comprising the anode as required by Claim 34 and as evidenced by the Oxford’s Learner’s Dictionary, which defines film as “a thin layer of something, usually on the surface of something else”.
Although modified Anandan does not specifically teach that the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte coated with the amphipathic surface protective agent is in a film shape, Anandan discloses an alternative embodiment wherein the solid electrolyte (40, Fig. 2) can be embedded into the separator (38, Fig. 2) [0028-0029].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have embedded the solid electrolyte into the separator with a reasonable expectation that embedding the solid electrolyte into the separator would result in a successful secondary battery. By embedding the solid electrolyte into the separator, the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte coated with the amphipathic surface protective agent is therefore provided “in a film shape” (i.e. as a thin layer) as required by Claim 29. The film comprising the solid electrolyte is interposed between the anode and the cathode [0024, 0028-0029] as required by Claim 34.
Claim(s) 45 and 49-50 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou et al. (US-20210050157-A1) in view of Kubo et al. (US-20160028107-A1) and in view of Anandan et al. (US-20170263975-A1).
Regarding Claim 45, Hou discloses a solid-state electrolyte material [0033]. The solid-state electrolyte material can be selected from a list of materials which include inorganic sulfide-based electrolyte materials [0034].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the solid-state electrolyte to be a sulfide-containing solid electrolyte (reads on an already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte) with a reasonable expectation that such a material would result in a successful solid electrolyte.
Hou discloses that solid electrolyte particles (706, Fig. 9) can be included in a separator slurry composition (702, Fig. 9) [0056]. The slurry includes a solvent (708, Fig. 9) which may be “any suitable solvent including, but not limited to, NMP or DMSO” [0056]. The separator slurry is deposited onto the electrodes and dried to remove the solvent [0056]. Hou does not disclose an amphipathic surface protective agent as claimed.
Kubo teaches that dibutyl ether has low reactivity with sulfide solid electrolytes, and is effectively used as a solvent constituting a slurry [0011]. When a solvent reacts with a sulfide solid electrolyte, lithium ion conductivity is decreased [0006-0007, 0010]. Kubo teaches that dibutyl ether can successfully replace NMP as a solvent used to form a slurry comprising sulfide solid electrolyte particles [0115].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the slurry of Hou to include dibutyl ether as a solvent with a reasonable expectation that such a solvent selection would result in a successful slurry for depositing sulfide-containing solid electrolyte particles.
The solvent rendered obvious by modified Anandan corresponds to an “amphipathic surface protective agent” (i.e. R1OR2, wherein R1 and R2 are each independently CxH2x+1 (x=4)) . Since modified Hou renders obvious that the solid electrolyte is dispersed in the solvent and then dried [Hou: 0056], it is understood that the solvent surrounds the solid electrolyte, thereby inherently coating the solid electrolyte in the solvent (i.e. amphipathic surface protective agent), as evidenced by the instant specification (MPEP 2112.01, I). Specifically, the instant specification evidences that the surface protective agent can be a liquid which is applied to the solid electrolyte surface via physical stir-mixing (instant specification: Pg. 7, lines 26-30; Pg. 8, lines 1-3; Pg. 10, lines 21-28). The instant specification further evidences that the amphipathic surface protective agent is “anchored on the surface of the SSE via Van der Waals force, forming an ultra-thin layer of protecting interphase” (instant specification: Pg. 5, lines 14-16). Since the prior art renders obvious a substantially similar product, it is understood that the protective agent would inherently attach via Van der Waals force to the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte surface (MPEP 2112.01, I).
The use of an already-formed sulfide-containing solid state electrolyte coated with an amphipathic surface protective agent as laid out above corresponds the recited limitation of a “material”. Although modified Hou does not explicitly teach a “dry” material as required by Claim 45, modified Hou renders obvious that solvent is removed through drying [Hou: 0056]. Therefore, it is understood by the Examiner that excess solvent (including any residual water) not attached to the surface of the solid electrolyte via Van der Waals forces is removed during the process of drying. Accordingly, modified Hou is understood to render obvious a “dry” material. Here, the term “dry” is broadly and reasonable interpreted as “free of water” (see 112(b) rejection of Claim 45, above).
Although modified Hou renders obvious that the solid electrolyte is a sulfide-containing solid electrolyte, modified Hou does not teach that the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte is one of the claimed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte materials. Notably, Hou discloses that the sulfide-based solid electrolyte material may be an amorphous glassy material [0033].
Anandan discloses solid electrolyte materials which successfully allow for the movement of ions through a crystal structure [0019]. Anandan disclose that such materials include amorphous sulfide glass electrolytes or thio-LISICON such as Li10GeP2S12 [0019]. The Examiner notes that this establishes Li10GeP2S12 as a substitutable alternative to amorphous sulfide glass electrolyte.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the sulfide-containing solid electrolyte taught by modified Hou for Li10GeP2S12 as taught by Anandan with a reasonable expectation that such a substitution would result in a successful sulfide-containing solid electrolyte (MPEP 2144.06, II). Accordingly, modified Hou renders obvious that the sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte is Li10GeP2S12, which is within the list of claimed materials.
Regarding Claims 49-50, modified Hou renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above. The Examiner notes that the limitations of Claims 49 and 50 constitute product-by-process limitations (see MPEP 2113). Although the structure implied by the process in considered, patentability is based on the product itself. “If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (MPEP 2113, I).
Here, the prior art teaches that a slurry comprising the sulfide-containing solid electrolyte particles and solvent (which reads on the amphipathic surface protective agent) is applied to the electrodes, and then the solvent is removed from the slurry [Hou: 0056]. This is understood to result in a structure wherein the surface of the sulfide-containing solid electrolyte is coated with the solvent (i.e. amphipathic surface protective agent) as evidenced by the instant specification (instant specification: Pg. 10, lines 21-28; instant Fig. 1). The structure of the product of the prior art corresponds to the structure implied by depositing the amphipathic surface protective agent “via mixing a liquid of the amphipathic surface protective agent with a powder of the already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte and drying the mixture” as required by Claim 49.
The structure rendered obvious by the prior art appears to be the same as the structure implied by the process of Claim 50. Specifically, the instant specification indicates that the resulting structure of the claimed processes is a solid-state electrolyte (SSE) coated with a surface protective agent which is attached to the surface of the SSE via Van der Waals forces (instant specification: Pg. 10, lines 21-28). The instant specification further indicates that there is no criticality to the method in which the surface protective agent is deposited onto the surface of the SSE, and that stir-mixing, spraying, chemical vapor deposition, molecular layer deposition and/or atomic layer deposition can be used interchangeably (instant specification: Pg. 7, lines 26-30).
Therefore, although modified Hou does not explicitly teach that the amphipathic surface protective agent is deposited “via spraying, chemical vapor deposition, molecular layer deposition, atomic layer deposition, or a combination thereof” as required by Claim 50, the structure implied by the claimed process (i.e. a SSE powder coated with an amphipathic surface protective agent) is rendered obvious by the prior art (see rejection of Claim 45, above). Thus the limitations of Claim 50 are met.
Claim(s) 51 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou et al. (US-20210050157-A1) in view of Kubo et al. (US-20160028107-A1) and in view of Anandan et al. (US-20170263975-A1) as applied to Claim 45, above, and in further view of Matsumura et al. (US-20210036311-A1) and in further view of Wang et al. (US-20060216613-A1).
Regarding Claim 51, modified Hou renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that an already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte is dispersed in dibutyl ether to form a slurry which is applied to an electrode and dried, thereby resulting in a coating of amphipathic surface protective agent on the solid electrolyte (see rejection of Claim 45, above; [Hou: 0056]). Although Hou discloses that any suitable solvent may be used as the solvent of the slurry [0056], Hou does not teach that the amphipathic surface protective agent is one of the materials of Claim 51.
Matsumura teaches an all-solid-state secondary battery [0001], wherein a slurry containing a solid electrolyte [0071, 0075-0078] is applied to a current collector [0093, 0101-0102] and dried to form an electrode [0141, 0159]. As the solvent for the slurry, Matsumura teaches that a polar organic solvent is preferable [0077].
Wang teaches that halogenated hydrocarbon-based compounds can be successfully used in a lithium-ion cell [0002, 0042]. The Examiner notes that these compounds read on polar organic solvents.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the solvent of the slurry of modified Hou to be a halogenated hydrocarbon-based solvent with a reasonable expectation that such a solvent selection would result in a successful slurry for a solid electrolyte (MPEP 2144.07).
Although modified Hou does not specifically teach that the halogenated hydrocarbon is one of the claimed halogenated hydrocarbons (i.e. “1-bromopentane, 2-Bromopentane…”), such a selection is within the scope of “halogenated hydrocarbons” such that, absent persuasive evidence or argument to the contrary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any of the claimed amphipathic compounds with a reasonable expectation that such a selection would result in a successful hybrid electrolyte (MPEP 2144.08). Examiner further notes that many of the claimed halogenated hydrocarbons are commercially available (e.g. via MilliporeSigma) thereby evidencing their common use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to independent Claim 19, Applicant has argued that the combination of Anandan and Wang does not disclose or suggest a material comprising an already-formed sulfide-containing solid-state electrolyte coated with an amphipathic surface protective agent that is in a dry film shape, a dry particle form, or a dry pellet (Remarks, Pgs. 7-8 of 9). Applicant has argued that the supposed amphipathic surface protective agent of the prior art is a liquid component present in a liquid electrolyte, and that there is no suggestion of the new claim limitation (Remarks, Pg. 8 of 9).
In regards to independent Claims 24 and 47, Applicant has argued that the newly added limitation requiring the construct to be “a solid-state construct” means that the construct does not include a liquid electrolyte, and therefore overcomes the prior art which includes a liquid electrolyte (Remarks, Pg. 8 of 9).
In regards to independent Claim 45, Applicant has argued that the putative amphipathic surface protective agent of the prior art is a liquid component present in a liquid electrolyte, and therefore the prior art does not teach the new limitation of a “dry” material (Remarks, Pg. 8 of 9).
The Examiner has carefully considered these arguments, but respectfully does not find them convincing. As noted in the 112 rejections (above), it appears that Applicant is applying a special definition of “dry” in Claims 19 and 45 and “solid-state” in Claims 24 and 47 which allows for the presence of a liquid (e.g. see Claims 19, 24, 39-40, 49, 51 and 53; instant Fig. 1; instant specification: Pg. 10, lines 21-28) amphipathic surface protective agent. However, since no special definition of “dry” or “solid-state” is provided in the instant specification, the terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Therefore the prior art Anandan in view of Wang is considered to read on the amended claims as laid out in the rejections of record, above. To promote compact prosecution, Claim 45 is further rejected over newly cited Hou in view of Kubo and Anandan.
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 DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/12/2026