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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s amendments to claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 18, 20, and 26 have resolved the issues of indefiniteness presented in the previous office action, and said rejections on the grounds of indefiniteness are accordingly withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 10, 17-21, and 23-26 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. Here, the primary reference Kim is combined with the secondary reference Kim-332 in the rejection to said claims.
Additionally, the applicant asserts that Kim fails to disclose electrolytes which are all-solid-state electrolytes. This argument has been fully considered but has not been found to be persuasive.
Kim discloses that their electrolyte includes an all-solid electrolyte component and a second liquid component, the electrolyte identified as being the all-solid electrolyte is the solid electrolyte component, with the liquid electrolyte being a second additional electrolyte component. Here, it is noted that the claims as presented to not prevent the inclusion of additional non-solid electrolyte components, as long as an all-solid electrolyte component is present. As the solid component of Kim is introduced as a unique solid component, it can therefore be considered to be distinct as its own electrolyte, as required by the instant claim.
Applicant's in respect to the applicant’s arguments in regards to claims 2, 3, and 16, the applicant asserts that Kim and Kim-332 cannot be combined with a reasonable expectation of success. Here, the applicant asserts that Kim-332 focuses on combining polymers with organic additives to form electrolytes, and that a combination of Kim and Kim-332 would result in the combination of polymers with organic additives rather than NASICON.
Here, this argument has been fully considered but has not been found to be persuasive. Kim discloses a combination of polymer components with NASICON, and Kim-332 discloses further polymer components, giving specific benefits which would motivate the inclusion of said polymers in the invention of Kim. Accordingly, the combination of Kim and Kim-332 is therefore proper.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the applicant has only considered the references individually, rather than looking at the references in combination. The application of the polymers of Kim-332 is viewed from the perspective of the disclosure of Kim, motivating their inclusion via the benefits of Kim-332.
Additionally, the applicant asserts that Kim and Kim-332 present defects in comparison to their invention. Here, the applicant asserts that the product of their claim 1 presents improved properties which include ionic conductivity, smooth and homogenous morphologies, more amorphous phases, lower glass transition temperatures, greater tensile strength, and formation of in situ sodium-ion conductive wetting layers. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., improved properties) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Additionally, in regards to the applicant’s arguments regarding claims 6, 7, 13, and 11, said arguments are moot, in view of the combination of Kim and Kim-332 presented below.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 17-21, and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated -by Kim (US 20190260077 A1) and further in view of Kim (US 20190280332 A1, hereafter referred to as Kim-332).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte (Paragraph 0027, “As the solvent, a non-aqueous organic solvent may be used.”) which comprises a polymeric component (Abstract, “1 to 40 parts by weight of a polymer;”) comprising a polyester-based polymer (Paragraph 0019, “a polyester-based polymer”) and a polyether-based polymer (Paragraph 0019, “a polyethylene glycol (PEO)-based polymer,”), and a ceramic component comprising inorganic materials (Paragraph 0010, “mixing 60 to 100 parts by weight of an ion conductive ceramic”; Paragraph 0016, “In another embodiment, the ion conductive ceramic may include a lithium oxide-based ion conductive ceramic”) wherein the inorganic material comprise sodium super ionic conductors (NASICON) (Paragraph 0018, “Preferably, the ion conductive ceramic may include: [ ] a Na superionic conductor (NASICON);”).
In regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires structure wherein the polymeric component comprises polyethylene oxide and polypropylene carbonate, Kim fails to disclose said structure. Though Kim discloses that their polymer component may comprise polyethylene based polymers (Paragraph 0019, “a polyethylene (PE)-based polymer,”) and polyester based polymers (Paragraph 0019, “a polyester-based polymer,”), they fail to specifically identify polyethylene oxide and polypropylene carbonate.
Here, we look to Kim-322, which is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing a polymer solid electrolyte (Abstract, “A polymer solid electrolyte having high ion conductivity and interfacial stability.”). Kim-332 discloses that their polymer electrolyte may comprise multiple polymers, specifically polyethylene oxide (Paragraph 0018, “The polymer for an electrolyte may be one or more types selected from the group consisting of polyethylene oxide (PEO), polyethylene carbonate (PEC), polypropylene carbonate (PPC)”). Here, Kim-332 discloses that the polymers they present produce a polymer solid electrolyte which has high ion conductivity and high interfacial stability (paragraph 0023, “A polymer solid electrolyte according to the present invention is capable of enhancing performance of a lithium secondary battery by securing high ion conductivity, and interfacial stability in a positive electrode.”). Based on this disclosure, it would therefore be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to select polyethylene oxide as the polyether compound and polypropylene carbonate as the polyester used in the invention of Kim thereby reading upon and making obvious the limitation of the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires structure wherein the polyester-based polymer is selected from the group consisting of polyglycolide, polyglycolic acid (PGA), polylactic acid (PLA), polycaprolactone (PCL), polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA), polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB), polyethylene adipate (PEA), polybutylene succinate (PBS), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polytrimethylene terephthalate (PTT), polyethylene naphthalate (PEN), polypropylene carbonate (PPC), polyethylene carbonate (PEC), or combinations thereof, though Kim discloses the use of a polyester-based polymer (Paragraph 0019, “a polyester-based polymer,”) they fail to disclose specific polyesters. Therefore, we look to Kim-322, which is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing a polymer solid electrolyte (Abstract, “A polymer solid electrolyte having high ion conductivity and interfacial stability.”).
Here, Kim-332 discloses that their polymer electrolyte may comprise multiple polymers, with the polyesters that they present as options being polyethylene carbonate and polypropylene carbonate (Paragraph 0018, “The polymer for an electrolyte may be one or more types selected from the group consisting of polyethylene oxide (PEO), polyethylene carbonate (PEC), polypropylene carbonate (PPC)”). Here, Kim-332 discloses that the polymers they present produce a polymer solid electrolyte which has high ion conductivity and high interfacial stability (paragraph 0023, “A polymer solid electrolyte according to the present invention is capable of enhancing performance of a lithium secondary battery by securing high ion conductivity, and interfacial stability in a positive electrode.”). Based on this disclosure, it would therefore be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to further include polyethylene carbonate in the invention of Kim, thereby reading upon and making obvious the limitation of the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires structure wherein the polyester-based polymer is selected from the group consisting of polypropylene carbonate (PPC), polyethylene carbonate (PEC), or combinations thereof, though Kim discloses the use of a polyester-based polymer (Paragraph 0019, “a polyester-based polymer,”) they fail to disclose specific polyesters. Therefore, we look to Kim-322, which is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing a polymer solid electrolyte (Abstract, “A polymer solid electrolyte having high ion conductivity and interfacial stability.”).
Here, Kim-332 discloses that their polymer electrolyte may comprise multiple polymers, with the polyesters that they present as options being polyethylene carbonate and polypropylene carbonate (Paragraph 0018, “The polymer for an electrolyte may be one or more types selected from the group consisting of polyethylene oxide (PEO), polyethylene carbonate (PEC), polypropylene carbonate (PPC)”). Here, Kim-332 discloses that the polymers they present produce a polymer solid electrolyte which has high ion conductivity and high interfacial stability (paragraph 0023, “A polymer solid electrolyte according to the present invention is capable of enhancing performance of a lithium secondary battery by securing high ion conductivity, and interfacial stability in a positive electrode.”). Based on this disclosure, it would therefore be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to further include polyethylene carbonate in the invention of Kim, thereby reading upon and making obvious the limitation of the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of claim 1. Additionally, Kim discloses structure where the polyether-based polymer further comprises polyethylene glycol (Paragraph 0019, “a polyethylene glycol (PEO)-based polymer,”).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Kim discloses structure where the weight percent of the polymeric component in the non-aqueous electrolyte is from 1 to 40 percent, where their hybrid film comprises 1 to 40 weight percent polymer material (Paragraph 0010, “Furthermore, provided is a method for producing a hybrid solid electrolyte, comprising: mixing 60 to 100 parts by weight of an ion conductive ceramic and 1 to 40 parts by weight of a polymer to prepare a mixture slurry;”), thereby representing an electrolyte which comprises 0.6 to 40 weight percent polymer component. However, though Kim does disclose structure which overlaps with the range of the instant claim, which requires that the weight percent of the polymeric component range from 20 to 50 weight percent, Kim fails to disclose a specific embodiment which falls within said range.
However, Kim does disclose that based on their mixture weight percentage, the polymer demonstrates a binding effect which prevents leakage from the solid electrolyte (Paragraph 0022, “Under the mixture ratio condition, the ion conductive ceramic can be well dispersed into the hybrid film and a binding effect by the polymer is maximized. In addition, no leakage occurs.”; Paragraph 0038, “The polymer effectively binds ceramic particles to each other.”). Accordingly, it would therefore be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to maximize the content of the polymer component within the range of Kim so as to achieve binding of the ceramic particles, thereby making obvious a polymer weight percent of 40 percent, which falls within and therefore makes obvious the range of 25 to 50 weight percent.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Kim discloses structure wherein the inorganic materials comprise a sodium super ionic conductor (NASICON) is Na3Zr2Si-2PO12 (Paragraph 0018, “Na3Zr2Si-2PO12 is employed”), thereby anticipating the formula of the instant claim which requires that the NASICON comprise Na1+xZr2SixP3-xO12, where x is 2 and is greater than zero and less than three.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 8. Additionally, Kim discloses structure wherein the NASICON comprises Na3Zr2Si-2PO12 (Paragraph 0018, “Na3Zr2Si-2PO12 is employed”).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally Kim discloses structure wherein the polymeric component and the ceramic component are combined through solid state mixing, where Kim discloses that the ceramic and polymer are mixed prior to the addition of a solvent (Paragraph 0023, “The hybrid film is obtained as follows. First, the ion conductive ceramic and the polymer are mixed with each other. An appropriate solvent can be added to the mixture (or a mixture slurry),”).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Kim discloses structure wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte is an solid-state electrolyte (Paragraph 0012, “Hereinafter, the present invention will be described in more detail. A ceramic solid electrolyte has high ion conductivity and a high lithium (or sodium) ion transport rate”). Specifically, Kim discloses the use of a hybrid solid electrolyte which comprises a solid electrolyte and a liquid electrolyte (Paragraph 0010, “Furthermore, provided is a method for producing a hybrid solid electrolyte, comprising: mixing 60 to 100 parts by weight of an ion conductive ceramic and 1 to 40 parts by weight of a polymer to prepare a mixture slurry; making the mixture slurry into a film shape to obtain a hybrid film; and interfusing a liquid electrolyte into the hybrid film to form a hybrid solid electrolyte.”). Here, where Kim discloses that their electrolyte includes an all-solid electrolyte component and a second liquid component, the electrolyte identified as being the all-solid electrolyte is the solid electrolyte component, with the liquid electrolyte being a second additional electrolyte component. Here, it is noted that the claims as presented to not prevent the inclusion of additional non-solid electrolyte components, as long as an all-solid electrolyte component is present. As the solid component of Kim is introduced as a unique solid component, it can therefore be considered to be distinct as its own electrolyte, as required by the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Kim discloses structure wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte is a component of an energy storage device comprising an anode, a cathode, and the nonaqueous electrolyte (Paragraph 0040, “A secondary battery according to an embodiment of the present invention may include a cathode, an anode, and the above-described hybrid solid electrolyte interposed between the cathode and the anode.”).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 19. Additionally, Kim discloses structure wherein the anode comprises sodium (Paragraph 0044, “Na metal as an anode,”).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 19. Additionally, Kim discloses structure wherein the anode is a sodium-based anode (Paragraph 0044, “Na metal as an anode,”).
Regarding Claim 23, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 19. Additionally, Kim discloses structure wherein the cathode is a sodium-based anode (Paragraph 0044, “In another embodiment, a sodium secondary battery may employ NaFePO4 as a cathode,”).
Regarding Claim 24, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 19. Additionally, Kim discloses structure wherein the energy storage device is a battery (Paragraph 0044, “In another embodiment, a sodium secondary battery may employ…”).
Regarding Claim 25, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 19. Additionally, Kim discloses structure wherein the energy storage device is a sodium-based battery (Paragraph 0044, “In another embodiment, a sodium secondary battery may employ…”).
Regarding Claim 26, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 25. Additionally, Kim discloses structure where the sodium-based battery is selected from the group consisting of sodium metal batteries, sodium sulfur batteries, sodium-ion batteries, sodium-air batteries, sodium oxygen batteries, sodium-carbon dioxide batteries, sodium-sulfur metal batteries, sodium-containing metal batteries, or combinations thereof (Paragraph 0044, “In another embodiment, a sodium secondary battery may employ NaFePO4 as a cathode, Na metal as an anode, and the above-mentioned hybrid solid electrolyte as an electrolyte.”).
Claim(s) 7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20190260077 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schneider (WO 2019046041 A1, with equivalent US publication US 20200176808 A1 used for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires that the weight percent of the ceramic component in the non-aqueous electrolyte be from 50 to 75 weight percent, Kim discloses structure where the weight percent of the polymeric component in the non-aqueous electrolyte is from 1 to 40 percent, where their hybrid film comprises 1 to 40 weight percent polymer material (Paragraph 0010, “Furthermore, provided is a method for producing a hybrid solid electrolyte, comprising: mixing 60 to 100 parts by weight of an ion conductive ceramic and 1 to 40 parts by weight of a polymer to prepare a mixture slurry;”), where the hybrid film is mixed with a liquid solvent (Paragraph 0049, “In the interfusing step, 60 to 100 parts by weight of the hybrid film is impregnated with 1 to 40 parts by weight of the liquid electrolyte.”) then dried (Paragraph 0047, “a method of coating the mixture slurry onto a given medium and then drying the mixture slurry.”, thereby representing an electrolyte which comprises 1 to 40 weight percent polymer component.
Therefore, we look to Schneider, which is an analogous art to the invention of the instant application, disclosing a solid electrolyte which comprises a polymer material mixed with a ceramic material (Abstract, “An electrochemical cell includes a solid state material that functions as an electrolyte and a separator within the electrode assembly. The solid state material is a mixture of a polymer that is interspersed with an ionically conductive ceramic material.”).
Here, Schneider discloses that the weight ratio of their ceramic material to their polymer material ranges from 90:10 to 40:60 (Paragraph 0004, “In some aspects, a solid state electrolyte includes a mixture of an ionically conductive polymer that is interspersed with an ionically conductive ceramic material. In the mixture, the ratio of the weight of the ionically conductive ceramic material to the weight of the ionically conductive polymer is in a range of 90/10 to 40/60.”), which encompasses the 50:50 ratio of the instant claim. Here, Schneider discloses that the ceramic component presents the benefit of reducing the temperature required to allow ion flow (Paragraph 0047, “the ceramic material is used in the polymer (for example, polyethylene oxide (PEO)) in order to reduce the temperature required to allow ion flow.”), while the polymer presents the benefit of binding the ceramic particles, as well as producing a high conductivity interphase at the surface of the ceramic (Paragraph 0049, “In addition, the polymeric materials used in the mixed composite may serve to provide flexibility and to bind the ceramic particles. Some theorize that that, for certain polymers, a high conductivity polymer “interphase” forms at the surface of the ceramic that enhances conductivity at relatively low temperatures.”). Based on these disclosed benefits, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to attempt to maximize both benefits through making use of a composition which comprises an equal parts ceramic and polymer, which falls within the scope of Schneider’s range of 90/10 to 40/60 and further makes obvious a weight ratio of the polymeric component to the ceramic component of 50:50, having the weight percent of the polymeric component in the non-aqueous electrolyte be 50 weight percent, thereby reading upon and making obvious the limitation of the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Here, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires that the weight ratio of the polymeric component to the ceramic component be 50:50, 75:25, or 85:15, Kim fails to disclose said structure, disclosing that a mixture weight ratio of the ion conductive ceramic to the polymer may range from 60 to 100:1 to 40 (Paragraph 0021, “A mixture ratio of the ion conductive ceramic:the polymer may be 60 to 100 parts by weight:1 to 40 parts by weight,”). Therefore, we look to Schneider, which is an analogous art to the invention of the instant application, disclosing a solid electrolyte which comprises a polymer material mixed with a ceramic material (Abstract, “An electrochemical cell includes a solid state material that functions as an electrolyte and a separator within the electrode assembly. The solid state material is a mixture of a polymer that is interspersed with an ionically conductive ceramic material.”).
Here, Schneider discloses that the weight ratio of their ceramic material to their polymer material ranges from 90:10 to 40:60 (Paragraph 0004, “In some aspects, a solid state electrolyte includes a mixture of an ionically conductive polymer that is interspersed with an ionically conductive ceramic material. In the mixture, the ratio of the weight of the ionically conductive ceramic material to the weight of the ionically conductive polymer is in a range of 90/10 to 40/60.”), which encompasses the 50:50 ratio of the instant claim. Here, Schneider discloses that the ceramic component presents the benefit of reducing the temperature required to allow ion flow (Paragraph 0047, “the ceramic material is used in the polymer (for example, polyethylene oxide (PEO)) in order to reduce the temperature required to allow ion flow.”), while the polymer presents the benefit of binding the ceramic particles, as well as producing a high conductivity interphase at the surface of the ceramic (Paragraph 0049, “In addition, the polymeric materials used in the mixed composite may serve to provide flexibility and to bind the ceramic particles. Some theorize that that, for certain polymers, a high conductivity polymer “interphase” forms at the surface of the ceramic that enhances conductivity at relatively low temperatures.”). Based on these disclosed benefits, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to attempt to maximize both benefits through making use of a composition which comprises an equal parts ceramic and polymer, which falls within the scope of Schneider’s range of 90/10 to 40/60 and further makes obvious a weight ratio of the polymeric component to the ceramic component of 50:50, thereby reading upon and making obvious the limitation of the instant claim.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20190260077 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pistorino (US 20170187063 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Kim makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires structure wherein the weight percent of the ceramic component of the non-aqueous electrolyte is between 0.1 and 50 weight percent, Kim fails to disclose said structure, disclosing that in their invention the ceramic component is from 60 to 99 weight percent of the solid electrolyte, through disclosing that the electrolyte comprises 60 to 100 weight percent of their hybrid film which comprises the ceramic and polymer components (Paragraph 0005, “The hybrid solid electrolyte includes (i) 60 to 100 parts by weight of the hybrid film”), where the hybrid film comprises 60 to 99 weight percent ceramic component (Paragraph 0005, “a hybrid film including (i) 60 to 100 parts by weight of an ion conductive ceramic and (ii) 1 to 40 parts by weight of a polymer”). Here, though Kim fails to disclose an embodiment which falls within the claimed range.
Therefore, we look to Pistorino, which is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing an electrolyte which comprises ceramic and polymeric materials (Abstract, “Composites of lithium-ion-conducting ceramic and polymeric materials make superior separators and electrolytes for use in lithium batteries.”). Here, Pistorino discloses that their invention’s ceramic component is most preferably present within the electrolyte in a range of 50 to 55 weight percent (Paragraph 0020, “In various arrangements, the weight fraction of ceramic particles in the electrolyte is between 10% and 80%, between 30% and 60%, or between 50% and 55%.”). Additionally, Pistorino discloses that the mixture of ceramic materials and polymeric materials in a solid electrolyte results in the ceramic’s tendency to break or delaminate to be mitigated (Paragraph 0035, “The polymeric material provides flexibility, binding, and space-filling properties, mitigating the tendency of rigid ceramic materials to break or delaminate.”), as well as providing high conductivity pathways for ions, enhancing the conductivity to the composite electrolyte (Paragraph 0035, “In one embodiment of the invention, composites of lithium-ion-conducting ceramic and polymeric materials make superior separators for use in lithium batteries. Ceramic material particles provide high conductivity pathways for lithium-ions, enhancing the conductivity of the composite as compared to the less ionically-conductive polymeric material.”). Accordingly, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to minimize the content of the ceramic component within the most preferable range of Pistorino so as to mitigate ceramic material rigidity, while achieving effective provision of high conductivity pathways, thereby reading upon and making obvious a weight percent content of 50 weight percent, thereby reading upon and making obvious the limitation of the instant claim which requires structure where the weight percent of the ceramic component of the non-aqueous electrolyte is between 0.1 and 50 weight percent.
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 JONATHAN W ESTES whose telephone number is (571)272-4820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:30.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 5712721453. 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.
/J.W.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725