DETAILED ACTION
Application 17/637466, “HYBRID COMPOSITE ELECTROLYTE COMPRISING A FLUOROPOLYMER”, is the national stage entry of a PCT application filed on 8/31/20 and claims priority from a foreign application filed on 9/2/19.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 5/12/25.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 15, 16, 18, 27 and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Makino (WO 2017/204028; citations taken from US 2019/0088994) and Yushin (US 2018/0151884). Supporting evidence is provided by
Regarding claim 15, 16, 18 and 27, Makino teaches a composite solid electrolyte film (“solid electrolyte composition… solid electrolyte containing sheet”, abstract) for solid state batteries (abstract) comprising: i) a solid electrolyte, dispersed within ii) a binder (abstract),
wherein the ratio of binder to binder plus sulfide solid electrolyte lies within the range of 2 to 30 wt% (paragraph [0090] teaches a 1 to 5 mass% range which lies substantially within and/or overlaps the claimed range; see also Table 1 which includes multiple examples with 0.04 parts binder:1.5 parts sulfide based solid meaning ~2.6% binder; it is noted that the dispersion medium is removed from the solid electrolyte by drying as described in paragraph [0239], thus provides negligible mass to the composite solid electrolyte film in its solidified form),
wherein the solid electrolyte may comprise at least one sulfide-based solid electrolyte, such as LPS as in claim 16 (“L-P-S”, paragraph [0053]), and
as to claim 27, Makino further teaches the solid electrolyte film as a subcomponent of a solid state battery (abstract).
Makino further teaches wherein the binder may comprise at least one (per)fluorinated polymer [polymer (A)] which is a polymer A-4 comprising units derived from C2-C8 perfluoroolefins (e.g. “polytetrafluoroethylene” of paragraph [0072] includes recurring units derived from the perfluoroolefin tetrafluoroethylene), but does not appear to teach wherein the polymer is amorphous.
In the battery art, Yushin teaches that desirable binders for the battery may include soft binders that exhibit small degree of swelling such as polytetrafluoroethylene [i.e. Teflon] and TEFLON amorphous fluoroplastics (AF) (paragraph [0071]). Yushin further teaches that the Teflon amorphous fluoroplastics provides advantages in terms of processability compared to the semicrystalline polytetrafluoroethylene (paragraph [0071]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute polytetrafluoroethylene for TEFLON AF [an amorphous variation on polytetrafluoroethylene] as the binder as such a modification merely requires the simple substitution of one known binder for another to yield predictable results (rationale set forth in MPEP 2141). Moreover, Yushin teaches that the Teflon AF provides additional advantage in terms of processability; therefore an additional teaching-suggestion-motivation type rationale exists for such a substitution.
*It is noted that TEFLON AF is Teflon modified to be amorphous as a copolymer comprising tetrafluoroethylene units and perfluorodioxole units (see Hartnack -US 2009/0145657- at paragraph [0033] as a teaching reference only); therefore, the TEFLON AF disclosed by Yushin is readable on the polymer A-1 requirements of claims 15 and 18.
Regarding claim 29, Makino and Yushin remain as applied to claim 15. 29 and 30 further require that the composite solid electrolyte film is formed from wet casting of a composition comprising the at least one sulfide-based solid electrolyte, the at least one (per)fluorinated amorphous [polymer (A)] and a (per)fluorinated solvent.
However, the recitations of claims 29 and 30 are product-by-process limitations which describe a method of making the product. As described in MPEP 2113, such limitations are only given patentable weight in terms of structure implied for the product.
Here, the limitations of claim 29 do not expressly require any particular structure beyond that disclosed by the cited art, particularly because Makino teaches the sulfide-based solid electrolyte and the perfluorinated amorphous polymer is taught by Yushin as described in the rejection of claim 15, and the solvent is not necessarily required to be present in the formed product as applicant’s specification teaches that the solid electrolyte is formed by a process including a drying step (e.g. applicant’s published paragraph [0111, 0115]).
It is further noted that Makino also teaches that solid electrolyte film is formed by applying a wet composition on a substrate (paragraphs [0197, 0224]). Makino further teaches that the polymeric binder may be employed as a polymer particle dispersion or as a polymer solution (paragraph [0088]) with “solution” implying the use of a solvent. Makino further teaches that the composition used to form the solid electrolyte may comprise a halogen solvent (paragraph [0118]), while Yushin teaches fluorinated solvents as obvious to use with PTFE or Teflon AF type binders (paragraph [0071]).
Therefore, the process recited in claim 29 is not found to imply any specific structure not suggested by the prior art.
Regarding claim 30, the cited art remains as applied to claim 29. The polymer (A) and the solid electrolyte do not share solubility in the solvent because LPS and tetrafluoroethylene and/or Teflon AF are soluble in the fluorinated solvents mentioned in the art, whereas LPS is an ionically bonded solid electrolyte which would not be expected to exhibit the same solubility in the solvent.
Claims 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Makino (WO 2017/204028; citations taken from US 2019/0088994) and Yushin (US 2018/0151884) and Burdynska (US 2020/0220202) and Liu (US 2020/0176822).
Regarding claim 31, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Is silent as to wherein the composite solid electrolyte film is free-standing.
In the battery art, Burdynska teaches that it is desirable to configure a solid electrolyte film to be free standing, which is an expression of improved mechanical properties, and that such a desirable nature can be achieved by including appropriate amounts and types of hard phases and/or polymeric materials (paragraph [0190, 0193]).
Moreover, in the battery art, Liu teaches that it is a matter of design choice to make a solid electrolyte film thinner or in a thicker, free standing form which is more mechanically robust (paragraph [0084, 0101]
Since the solid electrolyte of Makino [or Makino in view of Yushin] possess the claimed structure recited in claim 15 such as a high content of solid electrolyte joined by an appropriate amount of binder, the Makino-Yushin film would be expected to have a free-standing form. Alternatively, if the film were not mechanically strong enough to be free-standing, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the film such that it has a free-standing form by increasing its thickness as in Liu or increasing the amount of hard phase as in Burdynska, for the benefit of increasing the mechanical strength of the film.
Relevant or Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, though not necessarily pertinent to applicant’s invention as claimed.
Amin-Sanayei (US 2022/0306870) solid electrolyte comprising solid electrolyte nanoparticles and a resin (applied in 6/5/25 NFR);
Makino (EP 3467846) teaches a composite solid electrolyte film for solid state battery comprising at least one sulfide-based solid electrolyte and a perfluorinated amorphous polymer;
Watakabe (US 2002/0142207) solid electrolyte comprising perfluorodioxole and tetrafluoroethylene for improving strength;
Komatsu (US 2009/0105400) solid polymer electrolyte comprising perfluorodioxole/tetrafluoroethylene composites.
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 JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 PM (EST).
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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached on (571)270-7078. 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.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723