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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7 July 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 15 and 16 are amended. Claims 37 and 38 are newly added. Claim 20 stands withdrawn. Claims 15-19, 22-28, and 30-38, as filed 7 July 2025, are examined herein. No new matter is included.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 112(a), Applicant argues that the specification at [0054], disclosing a roller press at 150˚C, provides evidence for “a residual amount of … one or more solvents.” This is persuasive, the rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that Ose and Bauer do not teach or suggest that “a residual amount of one or more solvents selected from the group consisting of hydrocarbons, acetates, alcohols, glycols, acetone, diethylcarbamazine (DEC), and tetrachloroethylene, the one or more solvents having been added to the powder mixture prior to film formation to chemically activate the at least one type of fibrillizable binder including the PTFE”. Applicant has argued above, persuasively, that calendering an electrode using a roller press at 150˚C leaves residual solvent. Similarly, the heating process as disclosed by Ose can leave residual solvent, where “residual solvent” could be one remaining molecule. Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the one or more solvents having been added to the powder mixture prior to film formation to chemically activate the at least one type of fibrillizable binder including the PTFE” is that the PTFE is fibrilized or chemically activated.
Applicant further argues that a person of ordinary skill would have no reason to modify Ose and Bauer with the teachings of Zhong. Specifically, the person of ordinary skill would understand that the sulfide-based electrolyte material of Ose would be sensitive to moisture, and thus the use of solvents to chemically activate PTFE ([0009] of Zhong) would not be considered feasible for a solid electrolyte film. This is not persuasive. The potential sensitivity of sulfide-based electrolyte material to moisture (water) is not necessarily relevant to the use of this material with non-aqueous solvents.
Applicant further argues that there is no motivation to modify Ose and Bauer with the teachings of Zhong. This is not persuasive. Bauer is cited to teach ([0011-0012]) the use of a pseudo-dry mixture to carry out polymer fibrillation to create a polymer composite material. Zhong is cited to provide evidence that the fibrillation process creates chemical activation.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 15 and 16 have the preamble “A free-standing electrolyte film formed from a powder mixture, the free-standing electrolyte film.” The limitation “formed from a powder mixture” relates to the method of making the electrolyte film. Claims 15 and 16 also include the limitation “the one or more solvents having been added to the powder mixture prior to film formation to chemically activate the at least one type of fibrillizable binder including the PTFE.” Examiner notes that this is a method limitation, the method of adding solvent to the powder mixture creates a binder which is fibrilized or which is chemically activated. The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 15 is determined to be “A free-standing electrolyte film, the free-standing electrolyte film comprising: at least one type of fibrilized binder including polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE); at least one type of dry electrolyte powder in an amount 80-97% of the free- standing electrolyte film; and a residual amount of one or more solvents selected from the group consisting of hydrocarbons, acetates, alcohols, glycols, acetone, diethylcarbamazine (DEC), and tetrachloroethylene“ For similar reasons, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 16 is determined to include “A free-standing electrolyte film, the free-standing electrolyte film comprising: at least one type of fibrillizable binder including polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE);at least one type of dry electrolyte powder, the at least one type of dry electrolyte powder being a majority of the free-standing electrolyte film by weight; and a residual amount of one or more solvents selected from the group consisting of hydrocarbons, acetates, alcohols, glycols, acetone, diethylcarbamazine (DEC), and tetrachloroethylene.”
Claim Objections
Claims 15 and 16 include the limitation “a residual amount of one or more solvents selected from the group consisting of hydrocarbons, acetates, alcohols, glycols, acetone, diethylcarbamazine (DEC), and tetrachloroethylene, the one or more solvents having been added to the powder mixture prior to film formation to chemically activate the at least one type of fibrillizable binder including the PTFE.” Examiner notes that “having been added to the powder mixture prior to film formation to chemically activate the at least one type of fibrillizable binder“ is a process limitation. For the purpose of clarity, Applicant is requested to use property-based claim language where possible, for example “the binder is chemically activated” or “the binder is fibrilized”. Claims 15, 16, 22-25, and 30-33 include the term “fibrillizable binder”. For the purpose of clarity, Applicant is requested to amend this term to “fibrilized binder”, based on the disclosure at [0051] of the instant specification, the binder material has been fibrilized prior to forming the electrolyte film.
Claim 15 includes the limitation “80-97%.” Referring to the instant specification at [0017], this is intended to refer to “80-97 weight %”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 15-19, 22-28, and 30-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ose (US 20210126282 A1) in view of Bauer (US 20210273290 A1) and Zhong (US 20130255872 A1).
Regarding claim 15, the broadest reasonable interpretation, as set forth above is determined to include “A free-standing electrolyte film, the free-standing electrolyte film comprising: at least one type of fibrilized binder including polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE); at least one type of dry electrolyte powder in an amount 80-97% of the free- standing electrolyte film; and a residual amount of one or more solvents selected from the group consisting of hydrocarbons, acetates, alcohols, glycols, acetone, diethylcarbamazine (DEC), and tetrachloroethylene“
Regarding claims 15, 17, 18, and 19, Ose teaches an electrolyte film ([0061] solid electrolyte layer) formed from a powder mixture, the electrolyte film ([0061]-[0062] in view of [0046] explains that the electrolyte raw material is pulverized, Also ([0087]) “compression-forming a powder of the solid electrolyte material containing the solid electrolyte raw material and, as needed, other components”) comprising: at least one type of binder including polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) ([0062] in view of [0052]) the binder may be PTFE, from a list of 6 possible binder choices) such that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have selected PTFE as the binder of Ose with a reasonable expectation of success.
Ose discloses ([0063]) the percentage of the solid electrolyte raw material in the solid electrolyte layer may be 70-99.9 mass% which encompasses the range (80-97%) of the instant claim limitation, and also encompasses the value (80 weight %) of claim 17, the range (80-99%) of claim 18. At [0063] Ose discloses that the percentage of the solid electrolyte raw material in the solid electrolyte layer may be 90-99.9 mass%, which encompasses the range (95-99%) of claim 19.
Ose does not explicitly use the term free-standing electrolyte film. However, the process of making the film of Ose, as disclosed at ([0087-0088]) creates a film which is inherently freestanding.
Regarding the limitation “a residual amount of one or more solvents selected from the group consisting of hydrocarbons, acetates, alcohols, glycols, acetone, diethylcarbamazine (DEC), and tetrachloroethylene”, Ose discloses at [0100-0106] a process for forming solid electrolyte particles, which includes the addition of heptane, the use of a planetary ball mill, and then the use of a hot plate at 210˚C. Examiner notes that heptane is a type of hydrocarbon, and that drying the solid electrolyte particles at 210 ˚C will leave behind residual solvent, meeting the instant claim limitation.
Assuming, arguendo, that Ose does not inherently disclose that the binder is fibrillizable or that the electrolyte film is free-standing, the following teachings are relied upon to render these limitations obvious. Bauer discloses ([0011-0012]) the use of a pseudo-dry mixture to carry out polymer fibrillation to create a polymer composite material and that the polymer can be ([0030]) PTFE, PVDF, or PEO, and that fibrillation can improve the homogeneity and/or the mechanical stability of the polymer composite material.
Bauer further teaches ([0070]) that the polymer composite material of Bauer can be a self-supporting film. At ([0016]) Bauer discloses that the polymer of Bauer offers the benefits of improved elasticity which is advantageous with respect to mechanically stresses during cycling. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to produce the electrolyte film of modified Ose as a free—standing film, because a free-standing film offers a reasonable expectation of improved elasticity and therefore improved cycling performance.
Zhong provides further evidence that the binder is chemically activated.
Zhong teaches ([0070-0071]) the use of a solvent to activate a binder “so that the binder improves its adhesion strength upon interacting with the solvent. The solvent also needs to be highly vaporizable such that no follow on drying process is necessary to remove the solvent afterwards” and teaches that the solvent may be selected from hydrocarbons, … acetates, alcohols, glycols, acetone, …., ethanol, methanol, DEC.” This creates chemically activated PTFE, meeting the instant claim limitation.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to chemically activate the PTFE of modified Ose, with one of the solvents selected from the group consisting of hydrocarbons, … acetates, alcohols, glycols, acetone, …., ethanol, methanol, and DEC as taught by Zhong, in order to improve the adhesion capability of the binder to the other materials within the electrolyte film, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 16 , the broadest reasonable interpretation, as set forth above is determined to include “A free-standing electrolyte film, the free-standing electrolyte film comprising: at least one type of fibrillizable binder including polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE);at least one type of dry electrolyte powder, the at least one type of dry electrolyte powder being a majority of the free-standing electrolyte film by weight; and a residual amount of one or more solvents selected from the group consisting of hydrocarbons, acetates, alcohols, glycols, acetone, diethylcarbamazine (DEC), and tetrachloroethylene.”
Ose teaches an electrolyte film ([0061] solid electrolyte layer) formed from a powder mixture, the electrolyte film ([0061]-[0062] in view of [0046] explains that the electrolyte raw material is pulverized, thus reading on the limitation “formed from a powder mixture” Also ([0087]) “compression-forming a powder of the solid electrolyte material containing the solid electrolyte raw material and, as needed, other components”) comprising: at least one type of binder including polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) ([0062] in view of [0052]) the binder may be PTFE, from a list of 6 possible binder choices) such that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have selected PTFE as the binder of Ose with a reasonable expectation of success.
Ose discloses ([0063]) the percentage of the solid electrolyte raw material in the solid electrolyte layer may be 50-99.9% which meets the limitation “the majority of the electrolyte film”.
Ose does not explicitly use the term free-standing electrolyte film, however, the process of making the film, as disclosed at ([0087-0088]) creates a film which is inherently freestanding.
Regarding the limitation “a residual amount of one or more solvents selected from the group consisting of hydrocarbons, acetates, alcohols, glycols, acetone, diethylcarbamazine (DEC), and tetrachloroethylene”, Ose discloses at [0100-0106] a process for forming solid electrolyte particles, which includes the addition of heptane, the use of a planetary ball mill, and then the use of a hot plate at 210˚C. Examiner notes that heptane is a type of hydrocarbon, and that drying the solid electrolyte particles at 210 ˚C will leave behind residual solvent, meeting the instant claim limitation.
Assuming, arguendo, that Ose does not inherently disclose that the binder is fibrillizable or that the electrolyte film is free-standing, the following teachings are relied upon to render these limitations obvious. Bauer discloses ([0011-0012]) the use of a pseudo-dry mixture to carry out polymer fibrillation to create a polymer composite material, and that the polymer can be ([0030]) PTFE, PVDF, or PEO, and that fibrillation can improve the homogeneity and/or the mechanical stability of the polymer composite material.
Bauer further teaches ([0070]) that the polymer composite material of Bauer can be a self-supporting film. At ([0016]) Bauer discloses that the polymer of Bauer offers the benefits of improved elasticity which is advantageous with respect to mechanically stresses during cycling. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to produce the electrolyte film of modified Ose as a free—standing film, because a free-standing film offers a reasonable expectation of improved elasticity and therefore improved cycling performance.
Zhong provides further evidence that the binder is chemically activated.
Zhong teaches ([0070-0071]) the use of a solvent to activate a binder “so that the binder improves its adhesion strength upon interacting with the solvent. The solvent also needs to be highly vaporizable such that no follow on drying process is necessary to remove the solvent afterwards” and teaches that the solvent may be selected from hydrocarbons, … acetates, alcohols, glycols, acetone, …., ethanol, methanol, DEC.” This creates chemically activated PTFE, meeting the instant claim limitation.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to chemically activate the PTFE of modified Ose, with one of the solvents selected from the group consisting of hydrocarbons, … acetates, alcohols, glycols, acetone, …., ethanol, methanol, and DEC as taught by Zhong, in order to improve the adhesion capability of the binder to the other materials within the electrolyte film, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 22, 24, 25, 30, 32, and 33, Ose in view of Bauer and Zhong teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. However, Ose does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one type of fibrillizable binder comprises polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), PEO, or CMC. At [0057-0059] Bauer teaches that the composite polymer film may further comprise a swellable polymer which may be polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), or polyethylene oxide (PEO). Bauer teaches at [0011] that using a fibrillizable binder with a swellable polymer provides the benefit of a pseudo-dry mixture which can be advantageously handled like a dry mixture but can be more readily mechanically dispersed, compared to a fully dry mixture. At [0017] Bauer teaches that swollen polymers improve adhesive bonding and therefore mechanical properties.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to add the PVP, CMC, or PEO of Bauer to the binder of modified Ose, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving adhesive bonding.
Regarding claims 23 and 31, Ose in view of Bauer and Zhong teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Ose further teaches ([0052]) that PVDF may be a suitable binder material.
Ose does not explicitly teach that the PVDF binder is fibrilized, however Bauer discloses ([0012]) the use of polymer fibrillation to create a polymer composite material, that the polymer can be ([0030]) PTFE, and that fibrillation can improve the homogeneity and/or the mechanical stability of the polymer composite material. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select fibrilized PVDF for the electrolyte film of modified Ose, with a reasonable expectation of improving homogeneity and/or mechanical stability.
Regarding claims 26, 28, 34, and 36, Ose in view of Bauer and Zhong teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Ose further discloses ([0036]) the solid electrolyte is LiX-Li2S-P2S5, which is a glass-ceramic sulfide, thus meeting the limitations of claims 26, 28, 34, and 36.
Regarding claims 37 and 38, Ose in view of Bauer and Zhong teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Ose further discloses at [0100-0106] a process for forming solid electrolyte particles, which includes the addition of heptane, the use of a planetary ball mill, and then the use of a hot plate at 210˚C. Examiner notes that heptane is a type of hydrocarbon, which is a candidate within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives.
Claim(s) 27 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ose (US 20210126282 A1) in view of Bauer (US 20210273290 A1) and Zhong (US 20130255872 A1), as set forth in claims 15 and 16, and in further view of Lee (US 20160268627 A1).
Regarding claims 27 and 35, Ose in view of Bauer and Zhong teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. However, Ose does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one type of dry electrolyte powder is primarily a polymer. While Ose discloses LiX-Li2S-P2S5 ([0036]), Ose is not particularly limited with regards to the solid electrolyte choices ([0061]-[0062]) so long as they function as a solid electrolyte.
Lee teaches ([0060]) that the polymer gel electrolyte and a nano-scale solid electrolyte may be mixed 50-50 by weight, which creates a battery with a discharge capacity of 77 mAh/g.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify Ose by replacing Ose’s solid electrolyte with the 50-50 solid electrolyte and polymer gel electrolyte of Lee, based on Lee’s teaching that the polymer gel electrolyte makes a functional battery, and would be further motivated to optimize the amount of polymer electrolyte in the electrolyte film of modified Ose, with a reasonable expectation of achieving an electrolyte film meeting the instant claim limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on 571-270-1292. 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.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 1/12/2026