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 Application
Claims 1, 4-7, 9 are amended and claims 17-18 are new, submitted on 6/27/2025. Claims 14-16 are withdrawn. Claims 1-13 and 17-18 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-11, 13, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Kaga (US 20180309167 A1), as evidenced by Abbrent (Polymer, 42, (2001), 1407-1416).
Regarding claim 1, Kaga discloses an inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition comprising: an inorganic solid electrolyte having an ion conductivity of a metal belonging to Group I or Group 2 in the periodic table (Formula (1), [0075]); and a polymer binder (binder made of resin, [0111]) wherein the polymer binder includes at least two polymer binders A and B different from each other (two or more binders may be used in combination, [0118]), where the polymer binder A has a particulate shape (particle shape, [0020]). Kaga further discloses an example of binder made of copolymers of polyvinylene difluoride and hexafluoropropylene (PVdF-HFP) among others fluorine-containing resin ([0112]), which inherently discloses the claimed “a polymer binder consisting of a polymer having a crystallization temperature of 60°C or higher”, because the crystallization temperature of the polymer binder PVdF-HFP is around 125 °C, as evidenced by melting temperature of PVdF-HFP= 125 °C (Neat copolymer, Table 4, Abbrent).
Since Kaga discloses a particle shape binder ([0020]) and two or more binders may be used in combination ([0118]), and binder resin PVdF-HFP among a finite list of choices ([0112]), it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a particle shaped binder A in combination with a binder B made of PVdf-HFP selected from the finite list and thus arrive at the claim limitation “wherein the polymer binder includes at least two polymer binders A and B different from each other, where the polymer binder A has a particulate shape, and the polymer binder B is a polymer binder consisting of a polymer having a crystallization temperature of 60°C or higher” without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further Kaga discloses examples resins of binder can be a urethane resin ([0116]) polymethyl (meth)acrylate ([0114]), and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) ([0112]), which renders obvious they can be used as the polymer binder A. Thermoplastic polyurethane’s melting point typically is between 160-220 °C, poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA)’s melting point is around 160 °C, and PTFE’s melting point is approximately 327-344 °C, which are all higher than the crystallization temperature of about 125 °C of the polymer binder B made of PVdF-HFP, thus arrive at the claimed “the polymer binder A is a polymer which does not melt at a temperature lower than the crystallization temperature of the polymer of the polymer binder B”.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kaga discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kaga further discloses the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition according to claim 1, further comprising a dispersion medium ([0176]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kaga discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kaga further discloses the dispersion medium is a non-polar dispersion medium (benzene, toluene, xylene, and the like [0187]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kaga discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. As established above, polymer binder A is polymer particles holding a particle shape ([0020] [0135]) and PTFE can be the particle shaped polymer binder A as established above, which renders obvious the solubility of the polymer binder A in the non-polar dispersion medium measured at a temperature of 25 °C is 1% by mass or less, because PTFE is normally not soluble in the non-polar dispersion medium (benzene, toluene, xylene, and the like [0187]) at room temperature.
Regarding claim 6, modified Kaga discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. As established above, modified Kaga includes polymer binder B made of PVdf-HFP, which reads on “the polymer of the polymer binder B is a fluorine-based polymer”.
Regarding claim 7, modified Kaga discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kaga further discloses examples resins of binder can be a urethane resin ([0116]) and polymethyl (meth)acrylate ([0114]), which reads on the claimed “the polymer of the polymer binder A is polyurethane or a (meth)acrylic polymer”.
Regarding claim 8, modified Kaga discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kaga further discloses the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition according to claim 1, further comprising an active material ([0109]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kaga discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kaga further discloses a sheet (electrode sheet, [0022]) for an all-solid state secondary battery, comprising a layer constituted of the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition according to claim 1 ([0022]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Kaga discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kaga further discloses the sheet is obtained by forming a film of the solid electrolyte composition layer on a base material by means of coating and drying ([0212]) and while drying temperature is not particularly limited, the upper limit is preferably 300 °C or lower ([0226]), which reads on the claimed “wherein the layer constituted of the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition is a dried product of the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition at temperature equal to or higher than the crystallization temperature of the polymer binder B”, because as established above, polymer binder B made of PVdf-HFP, and the crystallization temperature of the polymer binder B PVdF-HFP is around 125 °C, as evidenced by Abbrent (Neat copolymer, Table 4, Abbrent).
Regarding claim 13, modified Kaga discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kaga further discloses an all-solid state secondary battery comprising, in the following order: a positive electrode active material layer; a solid electrolyte layer; and a negative electrode active material layer, ([0037] and FIG. 1) wherein at least one layer of the positive electrode active material layer, the solid electrolyte layer, or the negative electrode active material layer is a layer constituted of the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition according to claim 1 ([0038]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Kaga discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kaga further discloses the content of the binder in the solid electrolyte composition is more preferably 0.1% by mass or more and 8% by mass or less with respect to 100% by mass of the solid components for favorable interface resistance-reducing and maintaining battery characteristics ([0134]), which translates to the polymer binder A is about 0.05% to 4% when a content of polymer binder A equals to a content of polymer binder B, encompassing the range of 0.1% to 0.5% as claimed “the content of the polymer binder A is 0.1% to 0.5% by mass, with respect to 100% by mass of a total solid content”.
A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have an equal amount of polymer binder A and polymer binder B in the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition, and further with a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a value for the content of polymer binder A that falls within the range of 0.1% to 0.5% during routine experimentation regarding the content of the polymer binder A in order to achieve an optimized balance between interface resistance-reducing and maintaining battery characteristics.
Regarding claim 18, modified Kaga discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Since modified Kaga includes the polymer binder B of PVdF-HFP which shows a crystallization temperature of about 125 °C, falling within the range of 60 °C to 130 °C, this limitation is met.
5. Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaga (US 20180309167 A1), evidenced by Abbrent (Polymer, 42, (2001), 1407-1416), as applied to claim 3 and claim 10, respectively, in view of Yoon (US 20170214051 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kaga discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. As established above, modified Kaga includes nonpolar dispersion medium (benzene, toluene, xylene, and the like [0187]) and using PVdF-HFP as the polymer binder B. While modified Kaga further discloses the desire of a binder that is included in the solid electrolyte composition is capable of strongly bonding the inorganic solid electrolytes and the solid particles of the active material and the like and decreasing the interface resistance between the solid particles and the like ([0109]), modified Kaga does not explicitly disclose a solubility of the polymer binder B PVdF-HFP in the non-polar dispersion medium measured at a temperature of 25 °C is 2% by mass or more.
Yoon teaches a manufacturing method of an all-solid secondary battery and an electrode slurry capable of strongly adhering the current collector while reducing the content of the binder, thereby excellently maintaining electrode properties ([0010]), comprising: a clustered complex and a slurry and the clustered complex may comprise an electrode active material, a solid electrolyte, a conductive material, and a first binder, and the slurry may comprise a solvent and a second binder ([0013] and FIGs. 1 and 2) and the second binder was dissolved in the solvent in a solution form (NBR-xylene solution, [0106]).
It would have been obvious for a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a suitable non-polar solvent that would dissolve the polymer binder B (PVdF-HFP) in the same manner of dissolving the second binder as taught by Yoon, and thus arrive at the claimed “a solubility of the polymer binder B PVdF-HFP in the non-polar dispersion medium heptane measured at a temperature of 25 °C is 2% by mass or more”, to obtain a solid electrolyte composition that is capable of strongly adhering the current collector while reducing the content of the binder, with a reduced content of binder in order to realize being capable of strongly bonding the inorganic solid electrolytes and the solid particles of the active material and the like and decreasing the interface resistance between the solid particles and the like, as desired by Kaga, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12, modified Kaga discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. While modified Kaga further discloses the desire of a binder that is included in the solid electrolyte composition is capable of strongly bonding the inorganic solid electrolytes and the solid particles of the active material and the like and furthermore, decreasing the interface resistance between the solid particles and the like ([0109]), average particle diameter of the polymer particles is preferably 0.01 µm to 100 µm ([0140]), and a wide selection of dispersion medium ([0176-0188]), modified Kaga does not explicitly disclose that the layer constituted of the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition contains 30 or more particulate regions derived from a polymer binder, in the cross-sectional region of 10 µm2.
Yoon teaches a manufacturing method of an all-solid secondary battery and an electrode slurry capable of strongly adhering the current collector while reducing the content of the binder, thereby excellently maintaining electrode properties ([0010]), comprising: a clustered complex and a slurry and the clustered complex may comprise an electrode active material, a solid electrolyte, a conductive material, and a first binder, and the slurry may comprise a solvent and a second binder ([0013] and FIGs. 1 and 2); the first binder may be in a form of particles having strong adhesion and having an average particle size (D50) of about 0.01 µm to 10 µm ([0050]), and the first binder may have a content of about 1 to 5 wt% based on 100 wt% of a mixture of the active material and the solid electrolyte in order to have a balance between interparticle adhesion effect and agglomeration among particles due to excess of the binder which results in increased resistance and decreased ion conductivity ([0054]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect arriving at a layer constituted of the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition which contains 30 or more particulate regions derived from a polymer binder, in the cross-sectional region of 10 µm2 by choosing a suitable dispersion medium as discloses by Kaga, further through routine optimizations of the contents of the particulate binder and particle sizes of the particulate binder, as taught by Yoon, to obtain an optimized balance between interparticle adhesion effect and agglomeration among particles, in order to obtain the features of strongly bonding the inorganic solid electrolytes and the solid particles of the active material and the like, and decreasing the interface resistance between the solid particles and the like, as desired by Kaga.
6. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaga (US 20180309167 A1), evidenced by Abbrent (Polymer, 42, (2001), 1407-1416), as applied to claim 8, in view of Makino (US 20180076481 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kaga discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. While modified Kaga has included PVdF-HFP as polymer binder B and the composition further comprising an active material, and further discloses the desire of a binder that is included in the solid electrolyte composition is capable of strongly bonding the inorganic solid electrolytes and the solid particles of the active material and the like and decreasing the interface resistance between the solid particles and the like ([0109]) in addition to a variety of choices of polymer binder materials ([0110-0118]), modified Kaga does not explicitly disclose using the polymer binder B made of PVdF-HFP on a current collector to form an electrode (Kaga Table-1) , nor does modified Kaga explicitly disclose a peel strength of the polymer binder B with respect to a collector of copper foil or an aluminum foil measured by a 90° peeling test is 0.1 N/mm or more.
Makino teaches current collector preferably aluminum or copper foil among others ([0261]), and a composition for positive electrode (U-1) ([0397] and Table 2) comprising inorganic solid electrolyte-composition using PVdF-HFP as a binder, substantially identical structure to the polymer binder B used in the Example P-1 of the instant disclosure ([0374] and Table 2-1), which means the PVdF-HFP used in Makino inherently and necessarily possesses the feature as claimed “a peel strength of the polymer binder B with respect to a collector of copper foil or an aluminum foil measured by a 90° peeling test is 0.1 N/mm or more”, because when the structure or composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claim, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, absent evidence to the contrary for secondary consideration. [MPEP 2173.05 (II)].
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the modified Kaga composition comprising electrode active material and including PVdF-HFP polymer binder B in forming a positive electrode, applied on an aluminum or copper current collector in the same composition as taught by Makino, and thus arrive at the claim limitation “a peel strength of the polymer binder B with respect to a collector of copper foil or an aluminum foil measured by a 90° peeling test is 0.1 N/mm or more”, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to achieve a binder composition that is capable of strongly bonding the inorganic solid electrolytes and the solid particles of the active material and the like and decreasing the interface resistance between the solid particles and the like, as desired by Kaga.
7. Claim 17 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaga (US 20180309167 A1), evidenced by Abbrent (Polymer, 42, (2001), 1407-1416), as applied to claim 1, in view of Guo (WO 2020038011 A1-Priority to 8/24/2018, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 17, modified Kaga discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kaga further discloses the content of the binder in the solid electrolyte composition is more preferably 0.1% by mass or more and 8% by mass or less with respect to 100% by mass of the solid components for favorable interface resistance-reducing and maintaining battery characteristics ([0134]), which translates to the polymer binder A is about 0.05% to 4% when a content of polymer binder A equals to a content of polymer binder B, encompassing the range of 0.1% to 0.5% as claimed “the content of the polymer binder A is 0.1% to 0.5% by mass, with respect to 100% by mass of a total solid content”. A skilled artisan would reasonably arrive at an equal amount of polymer binder A and polymer binder B in the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition, and further with a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a value for the content of polymer binder A that falls within the range of 0.1% to 0.5% during routine optimization for achieving for favorable interface resistance-reducing and maintaining battery characteristics.
Assuming, arguendo, that modified Kaga, for some reason, is not considered to render obvious the claimed range of polymer binder A is 0.1% to 0.5% by mass, with respect to 100% by mass of a total solid content as set forth above, the following obviousness rejection is also presented.
While modified Kaga does not explicitly disclose the content of the polymer binder A is 0.1 to 0.5% by mass, Modified Kaga discloses an encompassing range of the total binder in the solid electrolyte composition is more preferably 0.1% by mass or more and 8% by mass or less with respect to 100% by mass of the solid components for favorable interface resistance-reducing and maintaining battery characteristics ([0134]).
Guo teaches a first inorganic solid electrolyte formed with a first binder of 0.05%, 0.07%, 0.1%, 0.13%, 0.15%, 0.17%, 0.2%, 0.23%, 0.25% based on the weight of the first solid electrolyte slurry, and the solvent accounts for 50% among other proportions ([0048]), which translates to the content of the first binder with respect to 100% by mass of a total solid content would be 0.1%, 0.14%, 0.2%, 0.26%, 0.3%, 0.34%, 0.4%, 0.5%, respectively, all falls within the claimed range of 0.1% to 0.5% as claimed “the content of the polymer binder A is 0.1% to 0.5% by mass, with respect to 100% by mass of a total solid content”.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the content of the polymer binder A and polymer binder B to be an equal amount or the content of polymer binder A is more than a content of the polymer binder B, and with a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the content of the polymer binder A is 0.1% to 0.5% by mass with respect to 100% by mass of a total solid content, as taught by Guo, in order to achieve an optimize balance between interface resistance-reducing and maintaining battery characteristics, as desired by Kaga.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments regarding the amended claim 1 filed on 6/27/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
9. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAN LUO whose telephone number is (571)270-5753. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM -5:00PM ET. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Leong can be reached on (571)270-1292. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K. L./Examiner, Art Unit 1751 9/15/2025
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 9/16/2025
Prosecution Insights