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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-23 are pending in the application. Claims 1-20 were rejected in the office action mailed 7/16/2025. Applicant added new claims 21-23. Claims 1-23 are presently examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 10/16/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The amendment filed 10/16/2025, in response to the office action mailed 7/16/2025, has been entered. Applicant’s claim amendments overcame all objections, 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections, and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections. Nevertheless, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 due to additional prior art.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160013515A1 (Lee) in view of US20210320327A1 (Ouspenski), together “modified Lee”.
Lee teaches the following claim 1 limitations:
A free-standing electrolyte layer (paragraph 98: “The electrolyte may include a… solid phase layer”) for use in an electrochemical cell (paragraph 65: “a lithium battery including the electrolyte”), the free-standing electrolyte layer comprising:
a plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles (paragraph 165: inorganic particles)…
an ionic liquid that surrounds each solid-state electrolyte particle (paragraph 67 & figure 1: ionic liquid 4 and inorganic particle 6) of the plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles, and
a plurality of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) fibrils (paragraph 132: separator includes PTFE which must be fibrils, because they are “a non-woven or woven fabric form”) that provides a structural framework for the solid-state electrolyte particles (paragraph 149: “The separator includes the electrolyte”),
wherein the free-standing electrolyte layer has an ionic conductivity greater than or equal to about 0.1 mS/cm at 40 oC (paragraph 43 & figure 5B: ion conductivity is greater than 10-4 S/cm when ionic liquid/lithium ion ([IL]/[Li]) molar ratio is ≥ 1.6; 10-4 S/cm = 0.1 mS/cm) and a thickness greater than or equal to about 5 micrometers to less than or equal to about 500 micrometers (paragraph 98: electrolyte thickness = 100 μm)
Lee fails to teach the claim 1 limitation that the plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles are solid-state halide-based electrolyte particles and/or solid-state hydride-based solid-state electrolyte particles.
Ouspenski is directed to a solid electrolyte with ion conductive material that includes a complex metal halide particles (abstract; paragraph 50-51) for improved ion conductivity and electrochemical stability (paragraph 23). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Lee’s inorganic particles to include metal halide particles, as taught by Ouspenski, for improved ion conductivity and electrochemical stability.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160013515A1 (Lee) and US20210320327A1 (Ouspenski), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US20140017557A1 (Lockett) and CN112133921A (Ma). Modified Lee teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Lee, however, fails to teach the following claim 2 limitation, which is taught by Lockett:
the free-standing electrolyte layer comprises:
greater than or equal to about to about 70 wt.% to less than or equal to about 99 wt.% of the plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles (paragraph 26: 40-75 wt% particles);
greater than or equal to about 0.1wt.% to less than or equal to about 20 wt.% of the ionic liquid (paragraph 26: 15-45 wt% ionic liquid)
Lockett is directed to a battery separator, with an electrolyte, with high ionic conductivity. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Lee’s electrolyte to include 40-75 wt% particles and 15-45 wt% ionic liquid, as taught by Lockett, as part of an electrolyte with high ionic conductivity.
Therefore, Lockett’s ranges (40-75 wt% & 15-45 wt%) overlap the claimed ranges (70-99 wt% & 0.1-20 wt%). MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A) provides the law for this issue:
“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”.
Given that Lockett’s ranges are similar to and substantially overlap the claimed ranges, and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed for the claimed ranges, the ranges in claim 2 are obvious variants of Lockett’s ranges.
Lee fails to teach the following claim 2 limitation, which is taught by Ma:
the free-standing electrolyte layer comprises…
greater than or equal to about 0.1 to less than or equal to about 10 wt.% of the plurality of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) fibrils (page 10, line 42 through page 11, line 2)
Ma teaches adding 8% mass ratio (8 wt%) polytetrafluoroethylene fibers to provide a network structure to an electrode (abstract; page 10, line 42 through page 11, line 2). This is similar to the purpose of PTFE fibrils in the present specification — for a structural framework (paragraph 18).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Lee’s electrolyte to include 8 wt% polytetrafluoroethylene fibers, as taught by Ma, to provide a network structure.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160013515A1 (Lee) and US20210320327A1 (Ouspenski), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US20200403267A1 (Li). Modified Lee teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Lee, however, fails to teach the following claim 3 limitation, which is taught by Li:
the plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles are selected from the group consisting of solid-state sulfide electrolyte particles (paragraph 47: sulfide-based solid electrolyte particles), solid-state halide-based electrolyte particles, solid-state hydride-based solid-state electrolyte particles, and combinations thereof
Li is directed to a lithium-ion battery cell with improved electrochemical performance (abstract). Li describes a solid electrolyte with sulfide-based particles (paragraph 47). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Lee’s electrolyte to include sulfide-based particles, as taught by Li, for a battery with improved electrochemical performance.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160013515A1 (Lee) and US20210320327A1 (Ouspenski), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of EP1873846A1 (Kagawa). Modified Lee teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Lee, however, fails to teach the following claim 4 limitation, which is taught by Kagawa:
ionic liquid covers greater than or equal to about 2 % to less than or equal to about 100 % of the exposed surface each solid-state electrolyte particle of the plurality of solid-state electrolyte particle (paragraph 102)
Kagawa describes covering negative electrode active material particles with ionic liquid to prevent an inert coat film, and thus accelerate formation of an electron conductive network (paragraph 102). Kagawa recites that the particles are “covered”; therefore, presumably 100% are covered.
Although Kagawa describes an electrode, the same principle, of covering particles with ionic liquid, applies to an electrolyte layer. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Lee’s ionic liquid to cover Lee’s inorganic particles, as taught by Kagawa, to prevent an inert coat film, and thus accelerate formation of an electron conductive network.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160013515A1 (Lee) and US20210320327A1 (Ouspenski), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of EP2093824A1 (Yoshida). Modified Lee teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Lee, however, fails to teach the following claim 5 limitation, which is taught by Yoshida:
the free-standing electrolyte layer has a porosity greater than or equal to about 0.1 vol.% to less than or equal to about 40 vol.% (paragraph 17: 10-70 vol% porosity)
Yoshida is directed to a battery solid electrolyte for reducing contact resistance (paragraph 1). The solid electrolyte includes a porous layer with 10 to 70 vol% porosity (paragraph 17). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Lee’s electrolyte to have 10 to 70 vol% porosity, as taught by Yoshida, as part of a battery with reduced contact resistance.
Yoshida’s 10 to 70 vol% range overlaps the claimed 0.1 to 40 vol% range. MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A) provides the law for this issue:
“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”.
Given that Yoshida’s range is similar to and substantially overlap the claimed range, and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed for the claimed range, the range in claim 5 is an obvious variant of Yoshida’s range.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160013515A1 (Lee) and US20210320327A1 (Ouspenski), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US20140017557A1 (Lockett). Modified Lee teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Lee, however, fails to teach the following claim 6 limitation, which is taught by Lockett:
the ionic liquid comprises a cation selected from the group consisting of… 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium (paragraph 15)… an anion selected from the group consisting of… hexafluorophosphate (paragraph 16)…
Lockett is directed to a battery separator, with an electrolyte, with high ionic conductivity. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for the ionic liquid in Lee’s electrolyte to include 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium and hexafluorophosphate, as taught by Lockett, as part of an electrolyte with high ionic conductivity.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160013515A1 (Lee) and US20210320327A1 (Ouspenski), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US20130029232A1 (Zheng). Modified Lee teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Lee, however, fails to teach the following limitations of claims 7-8, which are taught by Zheng:
Claim 7
the ionic liquid further comprises greater than 0 wt.% to less than or equal to about 70 wt.% of a dilute solvent (paragraph 57: 10 wt%)
Claim 8
the dilute solvent is… propylene carbonate… (paragraph 57)
Zheng is directed to an ionic liquid electrolyte for improving battery high current performance, low temperature performance, charge-discharge cycle performance, and safety (paragraph 10). Zheng’s ionic liquid is 10 wt% propylene carbonate (paragraph 57). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for the ionic liquid in Lee’s electrolyte to include 10 wt% propylene carbonate, as taught by Zheng, as part of a battery with high current performance, low temperature performance, charge-discharge cycle performance, and safety.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160013515A1 (Lee) and US20210320327A1 (Ouspenski), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of CN101348574A (Zhang). Modified Lee teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Lee, however, fails to teach the following claim 9 limitation, which is taught by Zhang:
each of the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) fibrils of the plurality of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) fibrils has an average length of greater than or equal to about 2 micrometers to less than or equal to about 100 micrometers (page 11, lines 12-16)
Zhang describes 8 micron (8 micrometer) long polytetrafluoroethylene fibers to obtain a crosslinked structure (page 11, lines 12-16). Thus Zhang, like the present specification, describes PTFE for structure. Zhang doesn’t state that 8 microns is the average. Zhang, however, only lists this one value, so presumably it is the average.
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Lee’s PTFE to have an 8 micron length, as taught by Zhang, in order to obtain a crosslinked structure.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160013515A1 (Lee) and US20210320327A1 (Ouspenski), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US20160276641A1 (Umeyama).
Claim 10 recites:
each of the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) fibrils… has a softening point of greater than or equal to about 270 oC to less than or equal to about 380 oC
This is a property of PTFE. Lee teaches PTFE; therefore, Lee’s PTFE must have this softening point.
Lee fails to teach the following claim 10 limitation, which is taught by Umeyama:
each of the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) fibrils… has… a molecular weight of greater than or equal to about 105 g/mol to less than or equal to about 109 g/mol (paragraphs 10 & 104: 200,000 to 2,000,000 PTFE fiber molecular weight)
Umeyama is directed to a secondary battery with excellent charge and discharge characteristics (paragraph 9). Umeyama’s battery includes a PTFE fiber layer (abstract; paragraph 10), the PTFE fibers having 200,000 to 2,000,000 molecular weight (paragraphs 10 & 104). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Lee’s PTFE fibrils to have 200,000 to 2,000,000 PTFE fiber molecular weight, as taught by Umeyama, for a secondary battery with excellent charge and discharge characteristics.
Furthermore, Umeyama provides guidance for optimizing PTFE fiber molecular weight (paragraph 39): Umeyama teaches that there is poor fiber intertwinement if the molecular weight is too small, and excessive intertwinement if the molecular weight is too great.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160013515A1 (Lee) in view of US20210320327A1 (Ouspenski), EP1873846A1 (Kagawa), and CN101348574A (Zhang), together “modified Lee”.
Lee teaches the following claim 11 limitations:
An electrochemical cell (title: electrolyte for lithium battery) that cycles lithium ions, the electrochemical cell comprising:
an electrolyte layer having an ionic conductivity greater than or equal to about 0.1 mS/cm at 40 oC (paragraph 43 & figure 5B: ion conductivity is greater than 10-4 S/cm when ionic liquid/lithium ion ([IL]/[Li]) molar ratio is ≥ 1.6; 10-4 S/cm = 0.1 mS/cm) and a thickness greater than or equal to about 5 micrometers to less than or equal to about 500 micrometers (paragraph 98: electrolyte thickness = 100 μm)
wherein the electrolyte layer comprises:
a plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles (paragraph 165: inorganic particles)…
a plurality of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) fibrils (paragraph 132: separator includes PTFE which must be fibrils, because they are “a non-woven or woven fabric form”) that provides a structural framework for the solid-state electrolyte particles (paragraph 149: “The separator includes the electrolyte”)
Lee fails to teach the claim 1 limitation that the plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles are solid-state halide-based electrolyte particles and/or solid-state hydride-based solid-state electrolyte particles.
Ouspenski is directed to a solid electrolyte with ion conductive material that includes a complex metal halide particles (abstract; paragraph 50-51) for improved ion conductivity and electrochemical stability (paragraph 23). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Lee’s inorganic particles to include metal halide particles, as taught by Ouspenski, for improved ion conductivity and electrochemical stability.
Lee, however, fails to teach the following claim 11 limitation, which is taught by Kagawa:
an ionic liquid that covers greater than or equal to about 2 % to less than or equal to about 100 % of the exposed surface each solid-state electrolyte particle of the plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles (paragraph 102)
Kagawa describes covering negative electrode active material particles with ionic liquid to prevent an inert coat film, and thus accelerate formation of an electron conductive network (paragraph 102). Kagawa recites that the particles are “covered”; therefore, presumably 100% are covered.
Although Kagawa describes an electrode, the same principle, of covering particles with ionic liquid, applies to an electrolyte layer. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Lee’s ionic liquid to cover Lee’s inorganic particles, as taught by Kagawa, to prevent an inert coat film, and thus accelerate formation of an electron conductive network.
Lee, however, fails to teach the following claim 11 limitation, which is taught by Zhang:
each of the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) fibrils of the plurality of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) fibrils have an average length of greater than or equal to about 2 micrometers to less than or equal to about 100 micrometers (page 11, lines 12-16)
Zhang describes 8 micron (8 micrometer) long polytetrafluoroethylene fibers to obtain a crosslinked structure (page 11, lines 12-16). Thus Zhang, like the present specification, describes PTFE for structure. Zhang doesn’t state that 8 microns is the average. Zhang, however, only lists this one value, so presumably it is the average.
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Lee’s PTFE to have an 8 micron length, as taught by Zhang, in order to obtain a crosslinked structure.
Claims 12 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160013515A1 (Lee) in view of US20210320327A1 (Ouspenski), EP1873846A1 (Kagawa), and CN101348574A (Zhang), as applied to claims 1 & 11, and further in view of US20200403267A1 (Li).
With regard to claim 12, modified Lee teaches the limitations of claim 11 as described above. Modified Lee, however, fails to teach the following claim 12 limitation, which is taught by Li:
the plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles are selected from the group consisting of solid-state sulfide electrolyte particles (paragraph 47: sulfide-based solid electrolyte particles), solid-state halide-based electrolyte particles, solid-state hydride-based solid-state electrolyte particles, and combinations thereof
Li is directed to a lithium-ion battery cell with improved electrochemical performance (abstract). Li describes a solid electrolyte with sulfide-based particles (paragraph 47). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Lee’s electrolyte to include sulfide-based particles, as taught by Li, for a battery with improved electrochemical performance.
With regard to claim 21, modified Lee teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Lee, however, fails to teach the following claim 21 limitation, which is taught by Li:
the thickness is greater than or equal to about 150 micrometers to less than or equal to about 500 micrometers (claim 1: up to 500 micrometers)
Li is directed to a lithium-ion battery cell with improved electrochemical performance (abstract). Li describes a solid electrolyte with up to 500 micrometer thickness (claim 1). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Lee’s electrolyte to have a thickness of up to 500 micrometers, as taught by Li, for a battery with improved electrochemical performance.
Li’s up to 500 micrometer range overlaps the claimed 150-500 micrometer range. MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A) provides the law for this issue:
“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”.
Given that Li’s range is similar to and substantially overlaps the claimed range, and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed for the claimed range, the range in claim 21 is an obvious variant of Li’s range.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160013515A1 (Lee) in view of US20210320327A1 (Ouspenski), EP1873846A1 (Kagawa), and CN101348574A (Zhang), as applied to claim 11, and further in view of US20060133012A1 (Zhong).
With regard to claim 13, modified Lee teaches the limitations of claim 11 as described above. Modified Lee also teaches the following claim 13 limitation:
the plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles is a plurality of first solid-state electrolyte particles, the ionic liquid is a first ionic liquid, and the plurality of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) fibrils is a first plurality of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) fibrils (see claim 11)
Claim 13 also recites:
wherein the electrochemical cell comprises:
at least one electrode, wherein the at least one electrode comprises:
a plurality of solid-state electroactive particles,
a plurality of second solid-state electrolyte particles,
a second ionic liquid that surrounds each of the solid-state electroactive particles and the second solid-state electrolyte particles, and
a second plurality of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) fibrils that provides a structural framework for the solid-state electroactive particles and the second solid-state electrolyte particle
Modified Lee teaches an electrolyte layer with electrolyte particles, an ionic liquid, and PTFE fibrils for a separator, as discussed under claim 11 above. Lee also teaches an electrode (paragraph 22) with an active material. Lee, however, fails to teach the electrolyte layer with electrolyte particles, an ionic liquid, and PTFE fibrils for an electrode. Zhong teaches PTFE fibrils for an electrode (paragraphs 79 & 81) to provide support for particles (abstract). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine for Zhong’s teaching of PTFE fibrils for an electrode to provide support for particles with modified Lee’s electrolyte particles and ionic liquid.
With regard to claim 14, modified Lee teaches the limitations of claims 11 & 13 as described above. Claim 14 recites another electrode with electrolyte particles, an ionic liquid, PTFE fibrils, and an active material different from the active material of the claim 13 electrode.
Lee teaches a different active material for the positive electrode (paragraphs 114-115) compared to the active material for the negative electrode (paragraphs 125-127). Zhong’s teaching of PTFE fibrils for an electrode, to provide support for particles, applies equally to the negative electrode as to the positive electrode.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160013515A1 (Lee) in view of US20210320327A1 (Ouspenski), EP1873846A1 (Kagawa), CN101348574A (Zhang), and US20060133012A1 (Zhong), as applied to claims 11 & 13-14, and further in view of US20140017557A1 (Lockett).
Lee fails to teach the following claim 15 limitation, which is taught by Lockett:
the… ionic liquid… comprises a cation selected from the group consisting of… 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium (paragraph 15)… an anion selected from the group consisting of… hexafluorophosphate (paragraph 16)…
Lockett is directed to a battery separator, with an electrolyte, with high ionic conductivity. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for the ionic liquid in Lee’s electrolyte to include 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium and hexafluorophosphate, as taught by Lockett, as part of an electrolyte with high ionic conductivity.
Claim 15 requires that the first ionic liquid, the second ionic liquid, and the third ionic liquid all include the claimed cation and anion. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to select a single ionic liquid for all three in order to simplify manufacturing.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160013515A1 (Lee) in view of US20210320327A1 (Ouspenski), EP1873846A1 (Kagawa), CN101348574A (Zhang), and US20060133012A1 (Zhong), as applied to claims 11 & 13-14, and further in view of US20130029232A1 (Zheng).
Lee, however, fails to teach the following limitation of claim 16, which is taught by Zheng:
the dilute solvent is… propylene carbonate… (paragraph 57)
Zheng is directed to an ionic liquid electrolyte for improving battery high current performance, low temperature performance, charge-discharge cycle performance, and safety (paragraph 10). Zheng’s ionic liquid includes propylene carbonate (paragraph 57). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for the ionic liquid in Lee’s electrolyte to include propylene carbonate, as taught by Zheng, as part of a battery with high current performance, low temperature performance, charge-discharge cycle performance, and safety.
Claims 17-18 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160013515A1 (Lee) in view of US20210320327A1 (Ouspenski), US20200403267A1 (Li), EP2093824A1 (Yoshida), and CN101348574A (Zhang), together “modified Lee”.
Lee teaches the following claim 17 limitations:
A free-standing electrolyte layer (paragraph 98: “The electrolyte may include a… solid phase layer”) for use in an electrochemical cell (paragraph 65: “a lithium battery including the electrolyte”), the free-standing electrolyte layer comprising:
a plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles (paragraph 165: inorganic particles)…
an ionic liquid (paragraph 67 & figure 1: ionic liquid 4); and
a plurality of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) fibrils (paragraph 132: separator includes PTFE which must be fibrils, because they are “a non-woven or woven fabric form”) that provides a structural framework for the solid-state electrolyte particles (paragraph 149: “The separator includes the electrolyte”)…
wherein the free-standing electrolyte layer has an ionic conductivity greater than or equal to about 0.1 mS/cm at 40 oC (paragraph 43 & figure 5B: ion conductivity is greater than 10-4 S/cm when ionic liquid/lithium ion ([IL]/[Li]) molar ratio is ≥ 1.6; 10-4 S/cm = 0.1 mS/cm), a thickness greater than or equal to about 5 micrometers to less than or equal to about 500 micrometers (paragraph 98: electrolyte thickness = 100 μm)
Lee fails to teach the claim 1 limitation that the plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles are solid-state halide-based electrolyte particles and/or solid-state hydride-based solid-state electrolyte particles.
Ouspenski is directed to a solid electrolyte with ion conductive material that includes a complex metal halide particles (abstract; paragraph 50-51) for improved ion conductivity and electrochemical stability (paragraph 23). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Lee’s inorganic particles to include metal halide particles, as taught by Ouspenski, for improved ion conductivity and electrochemical stability.
Lee, however, fails to teach the following claim 17 limitation, which is taught by Li:
the plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles comprises solid-state sulfide electrolyte particles (paragraphs 44 & 47: sulfide-based solid electrolyte particles)
Li is directed to a lithium-ion battery cell with improved electrochemical performance (abstract). Li describes a solid electrolyte with sulfide-based particles (paragraph 47). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Lee’s electrolyte to include sulfide-based particles, as taught by Li, for a battery with improved electrochemical performance.
Lee, however, fails to teach the following claim 17 limitation, which is taught by Zhang:
each of the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) fibrils of the plurality of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) fibrils has an average length of greater than or equal to about 2 micrometers to less than or equal to about 100 micrometers (page 11, lines 12-16)
Zhang describes 8 micron (8 micrometer) long polytetrafluoroethylene fibers to obtain a crosslinked structure (page 11, lines 12-16). Thus Zhang, like the present specification, describes PTFE for structure. Zhang doesn’t state that 8 microns is the average. Zhang, however, only lists this one value, so presumably it is the average.
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Lee’s PTFE to have an 8 micron length, as taught by Zhang, in order to obtain a crosslinked structure.
Lee, however, fails to teach the following claim 17 limitation, which is taught by Yoshida:
the free-standing electrolyte layer has a porosity greater than or equal to about 0.1 vol.% to less than or equal to about 40 vol.% (paragraph 17: 10-70 vol% porosity)
Yoshida is directed to a battery solid electrolyte for reducing contact resistance (paragraph 1). The solid electrolyte includes a porous layer with 10 to 70 vol% porosity (paragraph 17). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Lee’s electrolyte to have 10 to 70 vol% porosity, as taught by Yoshida, as part of a battery with reduced contact resistance.
Yoshida’s 10 to 70 vol% range overlaps the claimed 0.1 to 40 vol% range. MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A) provides the law for this issue:
“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”.
Given that Yoshida’s range is similar to and substantially overlap the claimed range, and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed for the claimed range, the range in claim 5 is an obvious variant of Yoshida’s range.
With regard to claim 18, modified Lee teaches the limitations of claim 17 as described above. Lee, however, fails to teach the following claim 18 limitation, which is taught by Li:
the plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles further comprises: solid-state halide-based electrolyte particles (paragraph 47: Li6PS5X, X=Cl, Br, or I), solid-state hydride-based solid-state electrolyte particles, or a combination of solid-state halide-based electrolyte particles and solid-state hydride-based solid-state electrolyte particles
Li is directed to a lithium-ion battery cell with improved electrochemical performance (abstract). Li describes a solid electrolyte with Li6PS5X particles, where X=Cl, Br, or I (paragraph 47). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Lee’s electrolyte to include Li6PS5X particles, where X=Cl, Br, or I, as taught by Li, for a battery with improved electrochemical performance.
With regard to claim 20, modified Lee teaches the limitations of claim 17 as described above. Claim 20 recites:
the plurality of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) fibrils are prepared from a starting polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) material having an average particle size greater than or equal to about 2 micrometers to less than or equal to about 2,000 micrometers
According to MPEP § 2113, this recitation of how the electrolyte fibrils are prepared does not limit the scope of the claim for patent examination purposes:
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
This claim and the specification fail to teach how this method of making affects the final PTFE fibrils; therefore, presumably they have the same characteristics as noted in claim 17, which is taught by modified Lee.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160013515A1 (Lee) in view of US20210320327A1 (Ouspenski), US20200403267A1 (Li), EP2093824A1 (Yoshida), and CN101348574A (Zhang), as applied to claim 17, and further in view of EP1873846A1 (Kagawa). Modified Lee teaches the limitations of claim 17 as described above. Modified Lee, however, fails to teach the following claim 19 limitation, which is taught by Kagawa:
ionic liquid covers greater than or equal to about 2 % to less than or equal to about 100 % of the exposed surface each solid-state electrolyte particle of the plurality of solid-state electrolyte particle (paragraph 102)
Kagawa describes covering negative electrode active material particles with ionic liquid to prevent an inert coat film, and thus accelerate formation of an electron conductive network (paragraph 102). Kagawa recites that the particles are “covered”; therefore, presumably 100% are covered.
Although Kagawa describes an electrode, the same principle, of covering particles with ionic liquid, applies to an electrolyte layer. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Lee’s ionic liquid to cover Lee’s inorganic particles, as taught by Kagawa, to prevent an inert coat film, and thus accelerate formation of an electron conductive network.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160013515A1 (Lee) and US20210320327A1 (Ouspenski), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US20230015743A1 (Yonemaru).
Lee fails to teach the following claim 22 limitation, which is taught by Yonemaru:
the ionic liquid comprises a dilute solvent selected from the group consisting of… acetonitrile… (paragraph 123)
Yonemaru is directed to a method for manufacturing an electrochemical device in which problems of irreversible changes in the electrochemical device composition are avoided (abstract; paragraph 11). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Lee’s ionic liquid to be acetonitrile, as taught by Yonemaru, to avoid irreversible changes in the electrochemical device composition (paragraph 11).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160013515A1 (Lee) and US20210320327A1 (Ouspenski), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US20230015743A1 (Yonemaru) and US20140370404A1 (Kato).
Lee fails to teach the following claim 23 limitation, which is taught by Yonemaru:
the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) fibrils of the plurality of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) fibrils have an average length of greater than or equal to 15 micrometers to less than or equal to about 100 micrometers (paragraph 84: 20 μm to 1 mm = 20-1000 micrometers)
Yonemaru is directed to a method for manufacturing an electrochemical device in which problems of irreversible changes in the electrochemical device composition are avoided (abstract; paragraph 11). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Lee’s PTFE to have 20-1000 micrometer length (paragraph 84), as taught by Yonemaru, to avoid irreversible changes in the electrochemical device composition (paragraph 11).
Yonemaru’s 20-1000 micrometer range overlaps the claimed 15-100 micrometer range. MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A) provides the law for this issue:
“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”
Given that Yonemaru’s range is similar to and substantially overlaps the claimed range, and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed for the claimed range, the length range in claim 23 is an obvious variant of Yonemaru’s range.
Lee fails to teach the following claim 23 limitation, which is taught by Kato:
the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) fibrils of the plurality of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) fibrils have… a molecular weight greater than or equal to about 107 g/mol to less than or equal to about 109 g/mol (paragraph 343: PTFE molecular weight = 12,000,000 = 1.2x107)
Kato is directed to secondary battery electrolyte membrane with excellent ion permselectivity, low electric resistance, high current efficiency, and oxidative deterioration resistance (paragraph 36). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Lee’s PTFE to have molecular weight = 12,000,000 (paragraph 343), as taught by Kato, for excellent ion permselectivity, low electric resistance, high current efficiency, and oxidative deterioration resistance (paragraph 36).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm ET.
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 at 303-297-4684.
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.
/R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights