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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/26/2026 has been entered.
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 1-3, 5, and 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 lacking long-range crystalline order.” 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. The disclosure of determining the crystallinity or lack thereof is merely a discussion of the XRD measurement technique and is not clearly tied to the structure of the aluminosilicate-PVdF composite .Note, Claim 1 recites “an amorphous ceramic lacking long-range crystalline order” which is broader in scope than the aluminosilicate-PVdF composite. 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]. After review of the art, it does appear the prefix of “meta” to aluminosilicates is a term of art which indicates an amorphous material. Therefore, the specification does provided support for only metakaolin and metahalloysite as being amorphous. For this reason, Claim 4 and 6 are determined to remedy the lack of support because those claims require the ceramic to be a metakaolin aluminosilicate.
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 or lacks long-range crystalline order for amended Claim 1.
Claims 2-3, 5, and 7 are rejected due to their dependence on Claim 1.
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) 1-7 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 Jafaar et al. (American Journal of Analytical Chemistry, 5, 1261-1272. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ajac.2014.517132).
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. Based on the XRD in Wang’s Fig. 1(c), the lepidolite is largely crystalline. Therefore, Wang does not teach “an amorphous ceramic lacking long-range crystalline order.”
Wang teaches the lepidolite as a solid electrolyte suffers from low conductivity due to the large interfacial resistance at grain boundaries and has an ionic conductivity of 10−7 S cm−1, see Pg5970/Section 2.3 and Pg5969/C(left)/2nd ¶.
To solve the same problem of investigating aluminosilicates for use as electrolytes that can suitably be added into a conductive polymer (see Title and Pg1262/3rd ¶), Jaafar teaches an amorphous clay hybrid having an aluminosilicate based structure of Al2Si2O7•1/2LiO as a solid electrolyte material, see Title. Jaafar further teaches the Al2Si2O7•1/2LiO (i.e., metanacrite-Li2O-hybrid) enhances Li+ ion transport by the amorphous structure and presence of non-bridging oxygens, see Pg1268/2nd-3rd paragraphs. Jaafar further teaches a five order of magnitude improvement in lithium ion conductive of 10−2 S cm−1 (see Jaafar-Pg1270/Section 3.4) compared to the lepidolite (of 10−7 S cm−1, see Pg5969/C(left)/2nd ¶) used in Wang.
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 the metanacrite-Li2O-hybrid as taught by Jaafar to the allow for improve lithium ion conduction.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Wang discloses a composite polymer electrolyte (CPE) which comprises poly(vinylidene-fluoride) (PVDF) and metanacrite-Li2O-hybrid, see Wang-Pg5969/Section 2.1/1st ¶ and Jaafar-Pg1270/4.Conclusions. Jaafar metanacrite is a aluminosilicate material, see Pg1262/4th ¶.
Regarding Claim 3, Wang discloses a composite polymer electrolyte (CPE) which comprises poly(vinylidene-fluoride) (PVDF), see Pg5969/Section 2.1/1st ¶.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Wang discloses a composite polymer electrolyte (CPE) which comprises poly(vinylidene-fluoride) (PVDF) and metanacrite-Li2O-hybrid, see Wang-Pg5969/Section 2.1/1st ¶ and Jaafar-Pg1270/4.Conclusions. Jaafar teaches nacrite is a aluminosilicate that belongs to the kaolin group, see Pg1262/4th ¶. Metanacrite is, therefore, a metakaolin aluminosilicate.
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, modified Wang discloses full cells using Li–metal as anode, LiFePO4 (or LiNi0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2) as cathodes and the composite polymer electrolyte (referred to as CPE) were assembled then tested, see Pg5972/ Section 2.5.
Regarding Claim 6, modified 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 05/26/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed below.
Rejections under U.S.C. 35 §112a
Applicant's arguments on pages 4-5 of the response with respect to the 112a rejection of Claims 1-7 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The paragraph 73 of the instant specification provided in the 112a rejection above is found to not support either the recitation of amorphous or the lack or long-range crystalline order of the ceramic recited in Claim 1. Amended Claim 1 recites “an amorphous ceramic lacking long-range crystalline order” which is broader in scope than the aluminosilicate-PVdF composite. Additionally, the disclosure of determining the crystallinity or lack thereof is merely a discussion of the XRD measurement technique and is not clearly tied to the structure of the aluminosilicate-PVdF composite. After review of the art, it does appear the prefix of “meta” to aluminosilicates is a term of art which indicates an amorphous material. Therefore, the specification does provided support for only metakaolin and metahalloysite as being amorphous. For this reason, Claim 4 and 6 are determined to remedy the lack of support because those claims require the ceramic to be a metakaolin aluminosilicate.
Rejections under U.S.C. 35 §102
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5 of the response, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 under USC 35 §102 and §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jaafar et al. as given above.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights