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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/18/2025 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 1-19 are 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.
The claim has been amended to recite “a substantially solid film”, however there is no support for this amendment in the instant specification. Additionally, a substantially solid film could represent either a solid film with pores on the surface or a porous film with pores on the surface.
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 1-19 is 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.
The term “substantially solid film” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. Even though the term “substantially” is defined in para. 0042 of the instant specification, the term as defined does not specify the necessary metes and bounds required for one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably ascertain the scope of the invention.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being unpatentable by Liu (Liu, A Novel Polyphosphonate Flame-retardant Additive Towards Safety-reinforced All-solid-state Polymer Electrolyte, August 13, 2019, Elsevier, Materials Chemistry and Physics 239).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a solid-state electrolyte (section 1., para. 4, [solid polymer electrolyte]) comprising a substantially solid film with a surface (Fig. 5d shows the surface morphology of the pristine PI [polyimide] separator, and the PI separator is composed of a substantial amount of solid fibers)and pores formed on the surface (Fig. 5d shows the surface morphology of the pristine PI separator which contain pores on the surface); and solid polymer electrolyte fillers dispersed within the pores formed on the surface of the substantially solid film (sec. 3.4, para. 1, [PEO/PBMP/LiTFSI slurry was completely infiltrated into PI film]).
Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses the solid-state electrolyte of claim 1, wherein the substantially solid film comprises a mixture of a polymer (sec. 3.4, the solid electrolyte matrix includes a polyimide membrane) and a flame-retardant material (sec. 3.4, [flame-retardant, PBMP is infiltrated into the PI film]).
Regarding claim 3, Liu discloses the solid-state electrolyte of claim 2, wherein the polymer includes a polyimide (sec. 3.4, para. 1, [chose an electrospun nanofiber polyimide battery separator … as its supporting matrix membrane]) (Fig. 5(d), [the pores of the polyimide host/matrix are shown in figure 5d]).
Regarding claim 6, Liu discloses the solid-state electrolyte of claim 1, wherein the solid polymer electrolyte fillers include a solid polymer (sec. 3.4, para. 1, [PEO/PBMP/LiTFSI slurry was completely infiltrated into PI film] [the fillers include polyethylene oxide (PEO) which is a solid polymer]) and a lithium salt (sec. 3.4, para. 1 [the lithium salt is LiTFSI (lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide)]).
Regarding claim 7, Liu discloses the solid-state electrolyte of claim 6, wherein the solid polymer includes a polyalkylene oxide (sec. 3.4, para. 1, [PEO/PBMP/LiTFSI slurry was completely infiltrated into PI film] [the fillers include polyethylene oxide (PEO) which is a solid polymer and also a polyalkylene oxide]).
Regarding claim 8, Liu discloses the solid-state electrolyte of claim 7, wherein the polyalkylene oxide is polyethylene oxide (sec. 3.4, para. 1, [PEO/PBMP/LiTFSI slurry was completely infiltrated into PI film] [the fillers include polyethylene oxide (PEO)]).
Regarding claim 9, Liu discloses the solid-state electrolyte of claim 6, wherein the lithium salt includes lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonylimide) (sec. 3.4, para. 1 [the lithium salt is LiTFSI (lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide)]).
Regarding claim 10, Liu discloses a battery comprising an anode (sec. 2.6), a cathode (sec. 2.6), and the solid-state electrolyte of claim 1 (sec. 2.6) (sec. 3.4, para. 2, LiFePO4/SPE/Li solid state battery), disposed between the anode and the cathode (sec. 2.6, [LiFePO4/SPE/LI]) .
Regarding claim 11, Liu discloses the battery of claim 10, wherein the anode includes lithium metal (Fig. 6, [Li anode is a part of the electrochemical cell]). Liu also discloses in sec. 1, para. 2 that “solid state batteries generally use lithium metal foil as anode material”.
Regarding claim 12, Liu discloses a battery comprising an anode, a cathode, and the solid-state electrolyte of claim 2 disposed between the anode and the cathode (sec. 3.4, para. 2, LiFePO4/SPE/Li solid state battery, [the cathode is LiFePO4, the anode is a lithium, and the SPE is the solid polymer electrolyte of claim 2]) (Fig. 6)).
Regarding claim 13, Liu discloses a battery comprising an anode, a cathode, and the solid-state electrolyte of claim 3 disposed between the anode and the cathode (sec. 3.4, para. 2, LiFePO4/SPE/Li solid state battery, [the cathode is LiFePO4, the anode is a lithium, and the SPE is the solid polymer electrolyte of claim 3]) (Fig. 6)).
Regarding claim 15, Liu discloses a battery comprising an anode, a cathode, and the solid-state electrolyte of claim 5 disposed between the anode and the cathode (sec. 3.4, para. 2, LiFePO4/SPE/Li solid state battery, [the cathode is LiFePO4, the anode is a lithium, and the SPE is the solid polymer electrolyte of claim 5]) (Fig. 6)).
Regarding claim 16, Liu discloses a battery comprising an anode, a cathode, and the solid-state electrolyte of claim 6 disposed between the anode and the cathode (sec. 3.4, para. 2, LiFePO4/SPE/Li solid state battery, [the cathode is LiFePO4, the anode is a lithium, and the SPE is the solid polymer electrolyte of claim 6]) (Fig. 6)).
Regarding claim 17, Liu discloses a battery comprising an anode, a cathode, and the solid-state electrolyte of claim 7 disposed between the anode and the cathode (sec. 3.4, para. 2, LiFePO4/SPE/Li solid state battery, [the cathode is LiFePO4, the anode is a lithium, and the SPE is the solid polymer electrolyte of claim 7]) (Fig. 6)).
Regarding claim 18, Liu discloses a battery comprising an anode, a cathode, and the solid-state electrolyte of claim 8 disposed between the anode and the cathode (sec. 3.4, para. 2, LiFePO4/SPE/Li solid state battery, [the cathode is LiFePO4, the anode is a lithium, and the SPE is the solid polymer electrolyte of claim 8]) (Fig. 6)).
Regarding claim 19, Liu discloses a battery comprising an anode, a cathode, and the solid-state electrolyte of claim 9 disposed between the anode and the cathode (sec. 3.4, para. 2, LiFePO4/SPE/Li solid state battery, [the cathode is LiFePO4, the anode is a lithium, and the SPE is the solid polymer electrolyte of claim 9]) (Fig. 6)).
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.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (Liu, A Novel Polyphosphonate Flame-retardant Additive Towards Safety-reinforced All-solid-state Polymer Electrolyte, August 13, 2019, Elsevier, Materials Chemistry and Physics 239) in view of Miller (US 20190207188 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Liu teaches the solid-state electrolyte of claim 2. Liu teaches wherein the flame-retardant material includes poly(bis(4-phenoxyl)propane methylphosphonate) (PBMP) (abstract).
Liu does not teach wherein the flame-retardant material includes decabromodiphenyl ethane.
Miller, in the same field of endeavor, electrochemical cells, teaches that a flame-retardant material may comprise of various compounds including organic halogen and organic phophorous compounds. Miller teaches that organic halogens, such as organobromine compounds, include decabromodiphenyl ethane (para. 0076).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solid state electrolyte of modified Liu by replacing the organophosphorus flame retardant PBMP of Liu with the organobromine decabromodiphenyl ethane flame retardant (para. 0076), as taught by Miller. The simple substitution of a known element (decabromodiphenyl ethane flame retardant) for another (PBMP flame retardant) would achieve the predictable result of providing a flame retardant material that delays, inhibits, or slows the spread of fire by suppressing chemical reactions, as disclosed by Miller. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 14, Liu teaches a battery comprising an anode, a cathode, and the solid-state electrolyte disposed between the anode and the cathode (sec. 3.4, para. 2, LiFePO4/SPE/Li solid state battery, [the cathode is LiFePO4, the anode is a lithium, and the SPE is the solid polymer electrolyte of claim 2]) (Fig. 6)).
Modified Liu teaches the solid-state electrolyte of claim 4 (Miller, para. 0076, [decabromodiphenyl ethane is listed as a suitable flame-retardant]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (Liu, A Novel Polyphosphonate Flame-retardant Additive Towards Safety-reinforced All-solid-state Polymer Electrolyte, August 13, 2019, Elsevier, Materials Chemistry and Physics 239) in view of Choi (US 20180301693 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Liu teaches the solid-state electrolyte of claim 1.
Liu does not teach wherein the pores have sizes in a range of about 100 nm to about 10 µm.
Choi, in the same field of endeavor, solid electrolytes, teaches a separator (para. 0064, [solid electrolyte]) formed with polyimide (para. 0066), wherein the pores have sizes in a range of about 100 nm to about 10 µm (para. 0068).
As the reference is not limited to any specific examples of polyimide solid-state electrolytes and as polyimide solid-state electrolytes comprising pore sizes in a range from 0.1 µm to 50 µm were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Choi (para. 0064 - 0068), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any polyimide solid-state electrolyte, including polyimide solid-state electrolytes comprising pore sizes in a range from 0.1 µm to 50 µm, in the solid-state electrolyte of Liu. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Other Pertinent Art
US 20190006649 A1
Bhopte teaches that a flame-retardant material can be composed of phosphonates such as dimethyl methylphosphonate (para. 0043) or of organobromines such as decabromodiphenyl ethane (para. 0022).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Arguments:
Liu’s separator is a completely different component than the electrolyte material.
Examiner agrees that Liu’s separator is a different component from the electrolyte material.
Liu’s PI separator and the PEO electrolyte are two separate components.
Examiner agrees that Liu’s PI separator and the PEO electrolyte are two separate components.
Liu clearly states that the PI Separator is provided as a supporting matrix.
Examiner agrees that the PI separator is a supporting matrix.
Liu does not teach that the “solid polymer electrolyte fillers dispersed within the pores formed on the surface”.
Examiner disagrees. Liu does teach that a slurry (which is a composed of a solid electrolyte – PEO/PBMP) is completely infiltrated into the film. Examiner recognizes that PEO and PBMP are solid components of Liu’s slurry (Liu, pg. 7, [It can be seen from Fig. 5c that the cross section of composite polymer electrolyte was also dense and no obvious fiber structures or pores were observed, indicating that the PEO/PBMP/ LiTFSI slurry was completely infiltrated into PI film]).
Claim 1 does not specify that the “solid polymer electrolyte fillers” are of the same material as the “substantially solid film”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERITA E GRANNUM whose telephone number is (571)270-1150. The examiner can normally be reached 10-5 EST / 7-2 PST.
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.
/V.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights