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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, drawn to an all-solid-state electrochemical cell in the reply filed on 9-16-2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that reserving the right to a joiner of Invention I and Invention II. The Examiner accepts.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 58-59,63,66,70,72,74,76,78,81,83,85 and 91-92 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 9-16-2025.
Applicant’s election of an all-solid-state electrochemical cell comprising a positive electrode comprising a composite material comprising a positive active material (as claimed in claim 22) and further comprising alkali or alkaline earth metal ion-conducting inorganic particles (as claimed in claim 3), a crosslinked aprotic polymer (as claimed in claim 10) and further comprising an electrically conducting material (as claimed in claim 27) and a polymer binder (as claimed in claim 30); a negative electrode comprising an active material comprising a metallic film (as claimed in claim 37) and an electrolyte layer further comprising at least one salt is claimed in claim 18 comprising LiTFSI in the reply filed on 9-16-2025 and 12-1-2025 are acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 5, 14, 16, 41, 44-45, 47 and 54 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9-16-2025 and 12-1-2025. Claim 5 is withdrawn because the inorganic particles containing a “M” is not present in claim 3, from which the claim depends, because of the way claim 3 has been drafted. Claim 14 is withdrawn because the alkali or alkaline earth metal ion solvating segment is not present in claim 10 from which the claim depends from because of the way claim 10 has been drafted. Claim 41 has been withdrawn because the elected species was a metallic film and not particles.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 10, 18, 22, 27-28, 30, 37, 40 and 87 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 is objected to because the claim should cite “an electrolyte layer”.Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 3, 10, 18, 22, 27-28, 30, 37, 40 and 87 are 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 1 is rejected because the phrases "preferably" and “for example” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 3 is rejected because the phrase “optionally” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation claimed after the phrase “optionally” is part of the claimed invention. In Ex parte Cordova, 10 USPQ2d 1949. Claim 3 is also rejected phrases "such as" and “for example” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 10 is rejected because the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 18 is rejected because the phrases "preferably" and “for example” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 22 is rejected because the phrases "preferably" and “for example” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 27 is rejected because the portions in the parenthesis and the use of "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 28 is rejected because the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 28 is rejected because there is no antecedent basis for the phrase “the particles of the positive electrode electric chemically active material” which is present after the use of the phrase “preferably”. Claim 30 is rejected because the phrase "preferably" and optionally further comprising” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 37 is rejected because of the phrase “preferably” and the portions in the parenthesis and the use of "for example" or “such as” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 40 is rejected because of the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Regarding claim 40, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 40 recites the broad range and then the claim recites a narrower range after the use of the phrase “preferably”. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 87 is rejected because of the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10, 18, 27-28, 30, 37 and 87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pistorino et al. (US 2017/0187063). Pistorino et al. teaches in [0029-0031 and 0042-0044] and FIG. 1, a solid-state electrochemical cell [teaching claim 87] comprising a positive electrode layer 120, a negative electrode layer 110 comprising lithium metal or lithium foil [teaching claim 37] and a separator 130 containing a ceramic-polymer composite electrolyte comprising ionically-conductive ceramic particles 135 which may retard formation and/or growth of dendrites from the anode. Pistorino et al. teaches in [0043] that the positive electrode comprises positive electrode active material particles embedded in a matrix of solid polymer electrolyte (catholyte) that may also contain small, electrically conductive particles such as carbon black [teaches claim 27] and the solid polymer catholyte can be a polymer, a copolymer or a blend thereof. Pistorino et al. teaches [0055], that the cathode can comprise the ceramic-polymer composite electrolyte material in addition to a polymer binder such as a fluorinated polymer such as PVDF, synthetic rubbers such as SBR, which helps to bind together the various components of the cathode [claims 28 and 30]. Pistorino et al. teaches in [0046] and FIG 4A, teaches an ionically conductive ceramic particle embedded in a solid polymer electrolyte matrix and teaches in [0048], that the ionically-conductive ceramic particles comprise one or more of LIPON, LLTO, LATP, LLZO, LSPS, thio-LISICON, and/or LISICON [teaching the specified alkali metal ion conducting inorganic particles of claim 3]. Pistorino et al. teaches in [0026], an electrolyte material includes a solid polymer electrolyte comprising polystyrene-poly (ethylene oxide) block copolymer, LiTSFI and in which electrolyte ionically conductive LISICON ceramic particles are distributed and teaches in [0027], wherein the electrolyte material includes a solid polymer electrolyte comprising poly (ethylene glycol) dimethyl ether, LiTSFI and poly (ethylene glycol) bis (carboxymethyl) ether and in which electrolyte ionically conductive LLTO ceramic particles are distributed [teaching an electrolyte layer comprising a composite material comprising an alkaline conducting inorganic particles as claimed in claim 3; a cross-linked aprotic polymer as claimed in claim 10 and further comprising at least one salt as claimed in claim 18]. Pistorino et al. teaches in [0049-0050], that the ionically-conductive solid polymer may be one or more of polyethers, poly alkyl carbonates, polyamines, polyimides, polyamides, perfluoro polyethers, etc. [teaching the cross-linked aprotic polymers claimed in claim 10] and that the solid polymer electrolyte may be cross-linked [teaching an electrolyte layer comprising a cross-linked aprotic polymer]. Pistorino et al. teaches in [0054], that the weight fraction of ceramic particles in the ceramic-polymer composite electrolyte is between 10% and 80%, between 30% and 60%, or between 50% and 55% [teaching ion conducting inorganic particles in an amount between 50-99.9 weight %]. Pistorino et al. teaches the claimed invention as explained above teaching wherein the cross-linked aprotic polymers comprising polyethers, poly alkyl carbonates, polyamines, polyimides or polyamides but does not specifically teach that the precursor of the crosslinked aprotic copolymer before crosslinking is in liquid form at 25°C and wherein the cross-linked aprotic polymer is stable at > 4V (vs. Li+/Li). Since Pistorino et al. teaches the specified cross-linked aprotic polymer as claimed in claim 10, then inherently the same the precursor of the crosslinked aprotic copolymer before crosslinking is in liquid form at 25°C and where the cross-linked aprotic polymer is stable at > 4V (vs. Li+/Li) must also be obtained.
In addition, the presently claimed property of same the precursor of the crosslinked aprotic copolymer before crosslinking is in liquid form at 25°C and where the cross-linked aprotic polymer is stable at > 4V (vs. Li+/Li) would have obviously been present once the Pistorino et al. product is provided. See MPEP 2122.01, I.
Claim(s) 22 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pistorino et al. (US 2017/0187063) in view of Zaghib et al. (US 2016/0149261). Pistorino et al. teaches the claimed invention as explained above but does not specifically teach the positive electrode active material used in the all-solid-state electrochemical cell and does not teach that the negative electrode comprising a metallic film has a thickness in the range of 5-500 µm. Zaghib et al. teaches an all solid-state lithium-sulfur electrochemical cell comprising at least one multi-layer component which comprises an ion-conductive solid electrolyte film, a positive electrode film containing a sulfur composite and a negative electrode film containing lithium. Zaghib et al. teaches in Example 2, a battery comprising a positive electrode film comprising a sulfur-composite active material comprising sulfur powder and carbon-coated LiFePO4, a cross-linkable poly (ethylene oxide) powder, Ketjen black and LiClO4; a negative electrode comprising a lithium foil having a thickness of 40 µm and a solid polymer electrolyte layer comprising silica, a polymer solution and LiClO4. Zaghib et al. teaches in claim 13, that the positive electrode film further comprises a polymer binder. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a sulfur-composite active material comprising sulfur powder and carbon-coated LiFePO4 with a lithium foil anode material because the cathode active material is a known material and Zaghib et al. teaches that a cathode material comprising a sulfur-composite active material comprising sulfur powder and carbon-coated LiFePO4 can be used with a lithium foil anode material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a thickness of 40 µm for the lithium foil anode material layer, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura Weiner whose telephone number is (571)272-1294. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm EST M-F.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/LAURA S. WEINER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/Laura Weiner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723