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 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 1-7 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 1 recites “an amorphous ceramic.” Discussion of the crystallinity of the ceramic in the instant specification appears in the following:
“Ceramics function on the principle of ions "hopping" through defect sites in the crystal lattice. Common ceramic SSEs include lithium "garnets", NASICON- and LISICON-type structures, and sulfides.” See [0007].
“The resulted aluminosilicate-PVdF composite with or without doping may be further analyzed using X-ray diffraction (XRD) by using Cu Κα radiation (X = 1.5405 angstrom) in 2θ range of 10°-70° to determine the crystallinity or lack thereof.” See [00073].
No further details are provided for the crystalline/amorphous structure of the ceramic of the instant invention, also, the results of the XRD analysis are not provided. Additionally, the examples indicate the ceramic was acquired from commercial sources and does not appear to undergo further processing that would influence the crystallinity, see [0062]-[0069].
Therefore, the instant specification does not provide a disclosure that would lead one of ordinary skill to arrive at the ceramic used in the solid electrolyte is amorphous.
Claims 2-7 are rejected due to their dependence on Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (J. Mater. Chem. A, 2020, 8, 5968-5974) with evidence from Wang et al (ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 2019, 2, 5909−5916, referred to as Wang-2).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang discloses a composite polymer electrolyte (CPE) which comprises poly(vinylidene-fluoride) (PVDF) and lepidolite, see Pg5969/Section 2.1/1st ¶. The instant specification at paragraph 42 acknowledges lepidolite is a ceramic and aluminosilicate material. There is no indication from Wang that the lepidolite was prepared and is simply mixed with other commercial reagents to make the composite polymer electrolyte, see Pg5973/Section 4.1. No further processing of the lepidolite is taught by Wang. Wang additionally teaches that lepidolite can suitably be natural ore, see Pg5969/C(left)/Last paragraph of Introduction. As evidenced by Wang-2, natural ore lepidolite has metal doping that leads to defects, vacancies, and interstitial ions of Li which achieves ionic transport, see Wang-2 Pg5910/ Results and Discussion, 1st ¶; Fig. S2 and Table S1. The defects and vacancies indicate at least amorphous regions within natural ore lepidolite. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude the teaching of Wang meet the limitation of an amorphous ceramic.
Note, the examples in the instant specification also indicate a ceramic acquired from commercial sources and does not appear to undergo further processing that would influence the crystallinity, see [0062]-[0069].
Regarding Claim 2, Wang discloses a composite polymer electrolyte (CPE) which comprises poly(vinylidene-fluoride) (PVDF) and lepidolite, see Pg5969/Section 2.1/1st ¶. The instant specification at paragraph 42 acknowledges lepidolite is a ceramic and aluminosilicate material.
Regarding Claim 3, Wang discloses a composite polymer electrolyte (CPE) which comprises poly(vinylidene-fluoride) (PVDF), see Pg5969/Section 2.1/1st ¶.
Regarding Claim 5, Wang discloses adding LiClO4 to the composite polymer electrolyte (see Pg5969/Section 2.1/1st ¶), which the instant specification acknowledges as way to dope lithium ion into the composite solid electrolyte (see instant-spec paragraphs 68-70).
Regarding Claim 7, Wang discloses full cells using Li–metal as anode, LiFePO4 (or LiNi0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2) as cathodes and the PVDF–LiClO4–lepidolite based composite polymer electrolyte (referred to as CPE) were assembled then tested, see Pg5972/ Section 2.5.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (J. Mater. Chem. A, 2020, 8, 5968-5974) as applied to Claim 1 above and in further view of Kosyakov (US-20190319275-A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Wang discloses a composite polymer electrolyte (CPE) which comprises poly(vinylidene-fluoride) (PVDF) and lepidolite, see Pg5969/Section 2.1/1st ¶. The instant specification at paragraph 42 acknowledges lepidolite is a ceramic and aluminosilicate material. Therefore, Wang does not teach the aluminosilicate added is metakaolin.
To solve the same problem of providing a solid electrolyte that includes a aluminosilicate (see [0049]), Kosyakov teaches metakaolin is a suitable solid electrolyte material, see Abstract. Additionally, Kosyakov teaches the unique highly defective structure of metakaolin aids the ion conduction mechanism, see [0073]-[0074].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to replace the lepidolite of Wang with metakaolin as taught by Kosyakov due to the uniquely defective structure allowing for ion conduction.
Regarding Claim 6, Wang discloses embodiments in which the aluminosilicate added to the composite polymer electrolyte at 6 wt% and 43 wt% which are within the claimed range, see Pg5969/Section 2.1/right column.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed below.
Claim objections
Applicant’s amendments, with respect to claim objections, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of Claim 6 has been withdrawn.
Rejections under U.S.C. 35 §112b
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4, with respect to rejections under USC 35 §112b have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under USC 35 §112b of Claim 4 and 6 has been withdrawn.
Rejections under U.S.C. 35 §102
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4, with respect to rejections under USC 35 §102 have been fully considered and are found unpersuasive. Applicant argues that Wang teaches a crystalline ceramic and therefore does not teach or motivate using an amorphous. After a review of the entirety of Wang, it is determined that Wang at least teaches the use of naturally occurring lepidolite is suitable which is high in defects and vacancies, as evidenced by Wang-2 given above. Additionally, the recitation of amorphous in amended Claim 1 is not properly supported by the specification as described in the 112a rejection above.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kayla E Clary whose telephone number is (571)272-2854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 (PT).
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, Allison Bourke can be reached on 303-297-4684. 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.E.C./
Kayla E. ClaryExaminer, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721