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, 3 & 5 are amended. Claim 2 is canceled. Claims 1 & 3-33 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1 & 4-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phares (US 2022/0069337 A1) in view of Jang (US 2022/0190438 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6-9 & 14-16, Phares teaches a rechargeable lithium cell such as a lithium-ion cell comprising an anode comprising an anode active material such as Si, a cathode comprising a cathode active material such as lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide, and a separator disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein at least one of the anode the cathode comprises multiple hybrid solid electrolyte particulates (10) comprising one or more than one inorganic solid electrolyte particles (20) including a sulfide-type which are encapsulated by a shell of conducting polymer electrolyte (15) comprising a network of crosslinked chains comprising chains of electrically conductive polymers such as polythiopene and 0.1% to 60% of a lithium salt such as LiPF6 dispersed therein and additionally a lithium-ion conducting polymer such as PVDF-HFP, wherein (iii) the conducting polymer electrolyte-to-inorganic solid electrolyte ratio is from 1/100 to 100/1 or the conducting polymer electrolyte shell has a thickness from 1 nm to 10 microns ([0036] & [0041]-[0057]; Example 1). Phares is silent as to the inorganic solid electrolyte particles comprising a compound selected from the group recited in independent claims 1, 3 & 5. Jang teaches hybrid solid electrolyte particulates comprising one or more inorganic solid electrolyte particles including a sulfide-type, LiPON and/or a NaSICON type as well as several other of the claimed types of solid electrolyte materials, wherein the solid electrolyte particles are encapsulated by a shell of conducting polymer electrolyte ([0086]-[0087] & [0094]-[0102]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to substitute LiPON and/or a NaSICON for the sulfide-type inorganic solid electrolyte of Phares in view of its suitability as an inorganic solid electrolyte material to be combined with a polymer to form hybrid electrolyte particulates (i.e disclosed as micro-droplets) as taught by Jang. “In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art, and cannot be based on applicant’s disclosure or the mere fact that the components at issue are functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958)”. See MPEP 2144.06 II. “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”. See MPEP 2144.07. While Phares does not explicitly teach (i) the hybrid solid electrolyte particulate having a lithium-ion conductivity from 10-6 S/cm to 5x10-2 S/cm and both the inorganic solid electrolyte and the conducting polymer electrolyte individually have a lithium-ion conductivity no less than 10-6 S/cm; and (ii) the conducting polymer electrolyte having an electron conductivity no less than 10-6 S/cm, it noted that Phares discloses a conducting polymer electrolyte and inorganic solid electrolyte having the same composition as that of the present invention as noted above. Accordingly, the claimed properties (i) and (ii) would be expected to be present within Phares’s invention. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claim 5, Phares teaches a rechargeable lithium cell such as a lithium-ion cell comprising an anode comprising an anode active material such as Si, a cathode comprising a cathode active material such as lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide, and a separator disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein at least one of the anode the cathode comprises multiple hybrid solid electrolyte particulates (10) comprising one or more than one organic solid electrolyte particles (20) including LLZO, which is a garnet-type, encapsulated by a shell of conducting polymer electrolyte (15) comprising a network of crosslinked chains comprising chains of a conjugate polymer with chains such as poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate (i.e PEGDA); and 0.1% to 60% of a lithium salt such as LiPF6 dispersed therein and additionally a lithium-ion conducting polymer such as PVDF-HFP, wherein (iii) the conducting polymer electrolyte-to-inorganic solid electrolyte ratio is from 1/100 to 100/1 or the conducting polymer electrolyte shell has a thickness from 1 nm to 10 microns ([0036], [0041]-[0057] & [0062]-[0065]; Example 1). Phares is silent as to the crosslinked chains comprising chains selected from propylene oxide, poly(ethylene glycol methyl ether acrylate), poly(ethylene glycol phenyl ether acrylate), ethoxylated trimethyl propyl triacrylate. Jang teaches hybrid solid electrolyte particulates comprising one or more inorganic solid electrolyte particles including a sulfide-type, LiPON and/or a NaSICON type as well as several other of the claimed types of solid electrolyte materials, wherein the solid electrolyte particles are encapsulated by a shell of conducting polymer electrolyte including crosslinked chains comprising chains selected from poly(ethylene glycol methyl ether acrylate) and ethoxylated trimethyl propyl triacrylate ([0086]-[0087], [0094]-[0102] & [0106]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use a conducting polymer electrolyte including crosslinked chains comprising chains selected from poly(ethylene glycol methyl ether acrylate) and ethoxylated trimethyl propyl triacrylate in view of obtaining a high elasticity (high elastic deformation strain) and high lithium-ion conductivity as taught by Jang ([0105]). While modified Phares does not explicitly teach (i) the hybrid solid electrolyte particulate having a lithium-ion conductivity from 10-6 S/cm to 5x10-2 S/cm and both the inorganic solid electrolyte and the conducting polymer electrolyte individually having a lithium-ion conductivity no less than 10-6 S/cm; and (ii) the conducting polymer electrolyte having an electron conductivity no less than 10-6 S/cm, it noted that modified Phares discloses a conducting polymer electrolyte and inorganic solid electrolyte having the same composition as that of the present invention as noted above. Accordingly, the claimed properties (i) and (ii) would be expected to be present within modified Phares’s invention. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claims 10-11 & 18-19, Phares teaches the rechargeable lithium cell of claim 9, wherein the hybrid solid electrolyte particulates (325) comprise a 1st conducting polymer electrolyte (335) encapsulating inorganic solid electrolyte particles (20); the anode comprising multiple anode particulates (325) comprising anode active material particles (25) encapsulated by a 2nd conducting polymer electrolyte (335), wherein the 1st conducting polymer electrolyte and the 2nd conducting polymer electrolyte are identical or different in chemical composition or structure; and the hybrid solid electrolyte particulates, the anode particulates, and a conductive additive (105) are compacted or consolidated to form the anode (Fig. 5; [0066]-[0067], [0085]-[0088] & [0094]). It is noted that a first half of the multiple particulates (325) in Phares can be equated to the hybrid solid electrolyte particulates and a second half of the multiple particulates can be equated to the anode particulates thereby reading on the present claims.
Regarding claims 12-13 & 20-21, Phares teaches the rechargeable lithium cell of claim 9, wherein the hybrid solid electrolyte particulates (325) comprise a 1st conducting polymer electrolyte (335) encapsulating inorganic solid electrolyte particles (20); the cathode comprising multiple cathode particulates (325) comprising cathode active material particles (25) encapsulated by a 2nd conducting polymer electrolyte (335), wherein the 1st conducting polymer electrolyte and the 2nd conducting polymer electrolyte are identical or different in chemical composition or structure; and the hybrid solid electrolyte particulates, the cathode particulates, and a conductive additive (105) are compacted or consolidated to form the cathode (Fig. 5; [0066]-[0067], [0085]-[0088] & [0094]). It is noted that a first half of the multiple particulates (325) in Phares can be equated to the hybrid solid electrolyte particulates and a second half of the multiple particulates can be equated to the cathode particulates thereby reading on the present claims.
Regarding claim 17, Phares teaches a powder product comprising multiple hybrid solid electrolyte particulates as defined in claim 1 ([0066]-[0067]).
Regarding claims 22-24, Phares teaches a process for producing a plurality of the hybrid solid electrolyte particulates as defined in claim 1, said process comprising: a) dispersing a plurality of primary particles of an inorganic solid electrolyte, having a diameter or thickness from 1 nm to 20 microns, in a reactive liquid mixture of (i) a monomer, oligomer, or cross-linkable polymer as a precursor to the conducting polymer and (ii) an initiator and/or a cross-linking agent to form a reactive slurry; b) forming the reactive slurry into micro-droplets containing water or a liquid solvent which is subsequently removed comprising spray-drying; and c) polymerizing and/or curing the monomer, the oligomer or the cross-linkable polymer in said micro-droplets to form the hybrid solid electrolyte particulates ([0051]-[0056] & [0085]-[0091]).
Regarding claims 25-26 & 29-30, Phares teaches the process of claim 22 further comprising a step of combining and consolidating said hybrid solid electrolyte particulates and particles of an anode active material and a conductive additive which are encapsulated by a conducting polymer electrolyte into a compacted anode electrode; or combining and consolidating said hybrid solid electrolyte particulates and particles of an cathode active material and a conductive additive which are encapsulated by a conducting polymer electrolyte into a compacted cathode electrode (Fig. 5; [0066]-[0067], [0085]-[0091] & [0094]). It is noted that a first half of the multiple particulates (325) in Phares can be equated to the hybrid solid electrolyte particulates and a second half of the multiple particulates can be equated to the anode/cathode particulates thereby reading on the present claims.
Regarding claims 27-28 & 33, Phares teaches a process for producing a plurality of the hybrid solid electrolytes particulates as defined in claim 1, the process comprising: a) dispersing a plurality of primary particles of an inorganic solid electrolyte, having a diameter or thickness from 1 nm to 20 microns, in a liquid solution comprising a conducting polymer dispersed or dissolved in a liquid solvent such as dimethylformamide (DMF) to form a slurry; b) forming the slurry into micro-droplets comprising spray-drying; and c) removing the liquid solvent in said micro-droplets to form the hybrid solid electrolyte particulates ([0038], [0051]-[0056] & [0061]).
Regarding claims 31-32, Phares teaches the process of claim 28 further comprising a step of combining and consolidating said hybrid solid electrolyte particulates and particles of an anode active material and a conductive additive which are encapsulated by a conducting polymer electrolyte into a compacted or consolidated anode electrode; or combining said hybrid solid electrolyte particulates and particles of an cathode active material and a conductive additive which are encapsulated by a conducting polymer electrolyte into a cathode electrode (Fig. 5; [0066]-[0067], [0085]-[0091] & [0094]). It is noted that a first half of the multiple particulates (325) in Phares can be equated to the hybrid solid electrolyte particulates and a second half of the multiple particulates can be equated to the anode/cathode particulates thereby reading on the present claims.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phares (US 2022/0069337 A1) and Jang (US 2022/0190438 A1), as applied to claims 1 & 4-33 above, and further in view of Jang (US 2020/0358084 A1, hereinafter cited as Jang’084).
Regarding claim 3, Phares as modified by Jang teaches the hybrid solid electrolyte particulate of claim 3 but is silent as to the conducting polymer electrolyte comprising a linear, branched or network of crosslinked chains comprising chains of a conjugated polymer selected from the group recited in claim 3. Jang’084 teaches cathode particulates having a shell of a conducting polymer electrolyte comprising a network of crosslinked chains comprising chains of a conjugated polymer such as poly(p-phenylene vinylene) as well as several other polymers which are presently claimed ([0018]-[0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use a conjugated polymer such as poly(p-phenylene vinylene) to form the network of crosslinked chains in Phares in order to increase the low electric and ionic conductivities associated with sulfur-based cathode active materials as taught by Jang’084 ([0015] & [0018]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 & 3-33 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The amendments to independent claims 1, 3 & 5 has prompted a new ground of rejection in view of the newly cited Jang and Jang’084 references. As presently claimed, the subject matter of claims 1 & 4-33 is found to be obvious over the combined teachings of Phares and Jang with claim 3 being found obvious further in view of Jang’084.
Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 1 & 3-33 stand rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm (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, BARBARA GILLIAM can be reached on (571)272-1330. 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.
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727