DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 15 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Nguyen et al., Liu et al., and Pan et al. are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
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 rejection of claim(s) 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. (“Li7La3Zr2O12 Garnet Solid Polymer Electrolyte for Highly Stable All-Solid-State Batteries”, Frontiers in Chemistry, 18 Jan 2021, pp 1-10) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments.
The rejection of claim(s) 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (“Ionic Conductivity Enhancement of Polymer Electrolytes with Ceramic Nanowire Fillers, Nano Letters, 2015, 15, 2740-2745) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill et al. (US 2018/0006326).
With regard to claims 1 and 13, O’Neill et al. disclose a lithium ion battery having an anode, a cathode and a solid-state electrolyte. The reference teaches an embodiment wherein the cathode comprises PVdF (corresponding to the claimed organic ion conductor for the ion-conducting composite binder), lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (corresponding to the claimed active material) and Li1.3Ti1.7Al0.3(PO4)3 (i.e. LTAP, corresponding to the claimed inorganic ion conductor in the binder)- see para [0012].
O’Neill discloses an example wherein the binder (PVdf, for example) is present in an amount of 3.5-16.5wt% of the total weight of the positive electrode with 67-80wt% being the mixture of inorganic ion conductor (LTAP for example) and the active material (NMC). The mixture of LTAP and NMC contains greater than 0 to about 75wt% of the inorganic ion conductor. Therefore, the inorganic ion conductor can be contained in the electrode in an amount of greater than 0-75 % of 67 wt% (i.e., greater than 0 to 50.25 wt%-see paragraphs [0047]-[0048]). This amount combined with that of the polymer binder yields a range of greater than 3.5 wt% up to 66.75 wt% (50.25wt% + 16.5 wt%) for the amount of ion-conducting composite binder based on the total weight of the composite positive electrode. The portion of this range overlapping the claimed range of 3-15wt% meets the claim. Choice of any value within the suggested prior art range would have been prima facie obvious in the absence of any showing of unexpected results associated with the claimed values.
O’Neill et al. is silent with regard to the content of the inorganic ion conductor of 5-50wt% based on the total weight of the ion-conducting composite binder. However, as noted above, the reference teaches that the amount of binder in the cathode is 3.5-16.5wt% and the amount of inorganic ion conductor can be greater than 0 to 50.25wt% of the cathode yielding a range of greater than 0-75wt% (>0/3.5 to 50.25/16.5+50.25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose any values from within the above-noted ranges in view of their apparent suitability. The overlapping portions of the ranges render the claims obvious in the absence of a showing of unexpected results associated with the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 7, see para [0048]- conductive carbon is present in an amount of 3.25 wt%.
With regard to claims 8 and 15, LTAP, as referenced above, is a phosphate-based solid electrolyte.
With regard to claim 9, see para [0048].
With regard to claim 14, O’Neill discloses the use of conductive additives in varying amounts to adjust the conductivity of the electrode (see para [0042 and [0048]).
With regard to claim 16, O’Neill discloses the use of PVdF and polyethylene oxide.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art to O’Neill et al. fails to teach or suggest the claimed composite electrode having a high-ionic solid electrolyte as the inorganic ion conductor that has the claimed shapes and sizes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-5, 7-9 and 13 -16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY RICKMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1514. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, 9am-3pm 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights