Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The following is in response to the applicant’s remarks filed 8/11/25.
The applicant submits that the amendments overcome the cited art, and that the newly added claims are allowable.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendments are indefinite, and given the interpretation defined for the purposed of examination, the amendments do not overcome the teachings of Sato.
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, 5 – 7, and 79 – 89 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The instant specification does not define the bounds of “substantially all ionic conductivity of the composite is via particle-to-particle contact of the argyrodite”. For the purpose of examination, substantially all is defined as 90% or more. Claims 5-7 and 79-89 are rejected as depending therefrom.
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.
Claims 1, 5 – 7, 79 – 88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Sato, US20200220207A1.
Regarding claim 1, Sato teaches a composite for an electrode for a lithium ion cell, the composite comprising (electrode mix)[0078]:
an active material [0081], inorganic ionically conductive argyrodite-containing particles (solid electrolyte having argyrodite structure)[0028][0081], and an organic phase comprising a styrenic polymer binder (styrene butadiene rubber)[0093]
wherein substantially all the ionic conductivity of the composite is via particle-to-particle contact of the argyrodite-containing particles (mixing ratio of argyrodite in the electrode material substantially comprises argyrodite, up to 95%)[0039]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. [MPEP 2144.05 I]. Note that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the substantially all ion conducting argyrodite particles results in substantially all ionic conductivity via the argyrodite particles.
Regarding claim 5, Sato teaches the composite of claim 1,
Sato does not explicitly teach wherein the polymer binder is insoluble in solvents having polarity indexes below 3.5.
However, this limitation recites a physical property of the polymer binder, and as Sato teaches the claimed polymer binder the physical property is inherently present [MPEP 2112.01 I].
Regarding claim 6, Sato teaches the composite of claim 1,
Sato does not explicitly teach wherein the polymer binder in non-ionically-conductive.
However, this limitation recites a physical property of the polymer binder, and as Sato teaches the claimed polymer binder (styrene butadiene rubber) the physical property is inherently present [MPEP 2112.01 I].
Regarding claim 7, Sato teaches the composite of claim 1, wherein the argyrodite is given by the formula: A7.xPS6-xHalx where A is an alkali metal and Hal is selected from chlorine (Cl), bromine (Br), and iodine (I) and 0 <x<2 [0031].
Regarding claim 79, Sato teaches the composite of claim 1, wherein the active material comprises silicon (silicon)[0084].
Regarding claim 80, Sato teaches the composite of claim 1, wherein the active material comprises silicon and carbon (silicon)[0084](carbon)[0090].
Regarding claim 81, Sato teaches the composite of claim 80, wherein the silicon is between 15% and 50% by weight of the composite (silicon active material, 5 – 95%), carbon is between 5% and 40% by weight of the composite (1 – 40%), and the styrenic polymer is between 1% and 5% by weight of the composite (included with conductive aid)[0085][0091][0094]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. [MPEP 2144.05 I].
Regarding claim 82, Sato teaches the composite of claim 81, wherein inorganic ionically conductive argyrodite- containing particles are at least 10% by weight of the composite (5 – 95%)[0085]. 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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05 I].
Regarding claim 83, Sato teaches the composite of claim 82, wherein the weight percentage of the inorganic ionically conductive argyrodite-containing particles in the composite is greater than the weight percentage of active material in the composite [0085].
Regarding claim 84, Sato teaches the composite of claim 80, wherein silicon is between 15% and 50% by weight of the composite (silicon active material, 5 – 95%)[0085][0091]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. [MPEP 2144.05 I].
Regarding claim 85, Sato teaches the composite of claim 80, wherein carbon is between 5% and 40% by weight of the composite (1 – 40%)[0091]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. [MPEP 2144.05 I].
Regarding claim 86, Sato teaches the composite of claim 1, wherein the active material is a cathode active material for a lithium ion cell [0002].
Regarding claim 87, Sato teaches the composite of claim 86, wherein the cathode active material is between 65% and 88% percent by weight of the composite (1 – 95%), the inorganic ionically conductive argyrodite-containing particles is between 10% and 33% by weight of the composite (1 – 95%), and the styrenic polymer binder is between 1% and 5% by weight of the composite (included with the conductive aid)[0097][0105][0106][0107]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. [MPEP 2144.05 I].
Regarding claim 88, Sato teaches the lithium ion cell [0002], comprising: an anode comprising the composite of an anode comprising the composite of claim 1, a separator comprising inorganic ionically conductive argyrodite-containing particles and a styrenic polymer binder (styrene butadiene rubber)[0078][0080][0092]; and a cathode comprising a cathode active material, an argyrodite, and a styrenic polymer binder [0078][0097].
Regarding claim 89, Sato teaches the lithium ion cell of claim 88, wherein the cathode active material is between 65% and 88% percent by weight of the cathode (1 – 95%), the inorganic ionically conductive argyrodite- containing particles is between 10% and 33% by weight of the cathode (1 – 95%), and the styrenic polymer binder is between 1% and 5% by weight of the cathode (included with the conductive aid)[0097][0105][0106][0107]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. [MPEP 2144.05 I].
Claims 90 - 92 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, US20200220207A1, and Teran, US20180034096A1.
Regarding claim 90, Sato teaches a composite for an electrode for a lithium ion cell, the composite comprising (electrode mix)[0078]:
an active material [0081], inorganic ionically conductive argyrodite-containing particles (solid electrolyte having argyrodite structure)[0028][0081], and an organic phase comprising a styrenic polymer binder (styrene butadiene rubber)[0093],
Sato does not teach wherein the polymer binder is one of poly(acrylonitrile-co-styrene-co-butadiene) (ABS), poly(styrene-co-acrylonitrile) (SAN), and poly(styrene-co-maleic anhydride).
Teran teaches a composite electrode material for a lithium ion cell [0002] an active material, inorganic ionically particles [0031], and an organic phase comprising a styrenic polymer binder [0007]
wherein the polymer binder is one of poly(acrylonitrile-co-styrene-co-butadiene) (ABS) and poly(styrene-co-acrylonitrile) (SAN)[0116]. Further, Teran teaches that the polymer binder is selected from a list comprising styrene butadiene rubber [0116] which is the styrenic binder of Sato. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the polymer binder of Teran into the cell of Sato as an art recognized equivalent for performing the same function (binding in a composite electrode) with reasonable expectation of similar results i.e. binding MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claim 91, Sato teaches a composite for an electrode for a lithium ion cell, the composite comprising (electrode mix)[0078]:
an active material [0081], inorganic ionically conductive argyrodite-containing particles (solid electrolyte having argyrodite structure)[0028][0081], and an organic phase comprising a styrenic polymer binder (styrene butadiene rubber)[0093],
Sato does not teach wherein the polymer binder is a styrenic block copolymer.
Teran teaches a composite electrode material for a lithium ion cell [0002] an active material , inorganic ionically particles [0031], and an organic phase comprising a styrenic polymer binder [0007]
wherein the polymer binder is a styrenic block copolymer [0116]. Further, Teran teaches that the polymer binder is selected from a list comprising styrene butadiene rubber [0116] which is the styrenic binder of Sato. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the polymer binder of Teran into the cell of Sato as an art recognized equivalent for performing the same function (binding in a composite electrode) with reasonable expectation of similar results i.e. binding MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claim 92, Sato teaches the composite of claim 91.
Further, Teran teaches wherein the styrenic block copolymer is one of styrene- ethylene/butylene-styrene (SEBS), styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS), and styrene-isoprene-styrene (SIS) [0116].
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 PATRICK M GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-1340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached on (571)270-5256. 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.
/PATRICK MARSHALL GREENE/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724