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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/27/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 7, 11, and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 is indefinite due to reciting “wherein the polymeric component in the non-aqueous electrolyte has a weight percent from 25 wt% to 50 wt%.”), as the polymeric component, being present in the non-aqueous electrolyte, inherently has a weight percent. Accordingly, it is unclear if the weight percent required by claim 6 is referring to the weight percent which is inherently present, narrowing its range, or if it is referring to a new weight percent of the polymeric component, which may be a sub-range within the inherently present weight percent. A suggested rephrasing to overcome this issue of indefiniteness is “wherein the weight percent of the polymeric component in the non-aqueous solid electrolyte is from 25 wt% to 50 wt%.”.
Claim 7 is indefinite due to reciting “wherein the polymeric component in the non-aqueous electrolyte has a weight percent from 50 wt% to 75 wt%.”), as the polymeric component, being present in the non-aqueous electrolyte, inherently has a weight percent. Accordingly, it is unclear if the weight percent required by claim 7 is referring to the weight percent which is inherently present, narrowing its range, or if it is referring to a new weight percent of the polymeric component, which may be a sub-range within the inherently present weight percent. A suggested rephrasing to overcome this issue of indefiniteness is “wherein the weight percent of the polymeric component in the non-aqueous solid electrolyte is from 50 wt% to 75 wt%.”.
Claim 11 is indefinite due to reciting “wherein the ceramic component in the non-aqueous electrolyte has a weight percent from 0.1 wt% to 50 wt%.”), as the ceramic component, being present in the non-aqueous electrolyte, inherently has a weight percent. Accordingly, it is unclear if the weight percent required by claim 11 is referring to the weight percent which is inherently present, narrowing its range, or if it is referring to a new weight percent of the ceramic component, which may be a sub-range within the inherently present weight percent. A suggested rephrasing to overcome this issue of indefiniteness is “wherein the weight percent of the ceramic component in the non-aqueous solid electrolyte is from 0.1 wt% to 50 wt%.”.
Claim 13 is indefinite due to reciting “wherein a weight ratio of the polymeric component to the ceramic component is 50:50, 75:25, or 85:15.”), as the polymeric component and ceramic components, in being present in the non-aqueous electrolyte, inherently have a weight ratio.
Accordingly, it is unclear if the weight ratio required by claim 13 is referring to the weight ratio which is inherently present, specifying its value, or if it is referring to a new weight ratio, which may be a weight ratio of sub groups of the ceramic component and the polymeric component. A suggested rephrasing to overcome this issue of indefiniteness is “wherein the weight ratio of the polymeric component to the ceramic component is 50:50, 75:25, or 85:15”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Here, the applicant asserts that where independent claim 1 has been amended to require that the non-aqueous electrolyte is entirely solid state, that Kim fails to teach said structure, and further teaches away from said structure, indicating that an entirely solid-state electrolyte presents disadvantages. This argument has been fully considered but has been found to be non-persuasive for the following reasons, based on review of the claims and the prior art.
In regards to the instant application, claim 1 is directed towards a nonaqueous electrolyte which is entirely solid state, without any distinction in regards to other components which may be used in combination with the entirely solid state electrolyte. The invention of Kim is directed towards a hybrid solid state electrolyte which is assembled in the form of a solid state hybrid film, which itself is a film that is able to function as a solid electrolyte (Paragraph 0024, “The hybrid film, which includes an ion conductive ceramic and a polymer, alone may serve as a solid electrolyte in that it has excellent ion conductivity”). Then, Kim discloses that the hybrid film is impregnated with a liquid electrolyte in a production step which produces the hybrid solid electrolyte (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.”). Based on this assembly process of two distinct electrolytes, one ordinarily skilled in the art would consider that Kim’s hybrid solid electrolyte is the result of the combination of a distinct solid-state electrolyte, which is entirely solid state, and a distinct liquid electrolyte.
Accordingly, where Kim’s invention is a hybrid electrolyte which is a combination of two electrolytes, it can therefore be considered that Kim discloses a component which is the entirely solid state non-aqueous electrolyte as required by the instant claim 1. Accordingly, as the instant claims do not disallow for the combination of an entirely solid state nonaqueous electrolyte with other components, or for the disclosure of entirely solid state electrolytes which are used as precursor components for hybrid electrolytes which are not entirely solid state, Kim’s hybrid film therefore satisfies the limitations of the instant claim.
Further, Claim 19, which requires that the non-aqueous electrolyte is a component of an energy storage device comprising an anode, a cathode, and the non-aqueous electrolyte, the use of comprising language further indicates that components beyond those listed may be permitted in the energy storage device. Based on the applicant’s discussed intentions regarding the non-aqueous electrolyte being a sole electrolyte in an energy storage device, language which requires that the energy storage device comprise only one electrolyte, or language which indicates specific components which the energy storage device consists of, could be used to achieve the applicant’s intended result.
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. 103 as being unpatentable over 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);”). Additionally, Kim discloses that their non-aqueous electrolyte is entirely solid state (Paragraph 0005, “To achieve the objective of the present invention, provided is a hybrid solid electrolyte comprising: 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;”).
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
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
Prosecution Insights