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 without traverse of group 1, claims 1-9 and 13-16 in the reply filed on 11/17/25 is acknowledged. Claims 10-12 are withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected method.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term NASICON appears to be misspelled as “NAISICON.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3-5 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.
Claims 3-5 are indefinite because it is not clear whether the parenthetical phrases “zero-dimensional”, “one-dimensional”, and “two-dimensional” are positive recitations or merely optional modifiers of the terms “spherical”, “fibrous” and “flat”, respectively. For purposes of applying art, the claims have been interpreted to require spherical, fibrous and flat particles with the claimed dimensions and the parenthetical phrases are considered to be optional modifiers. Deletion of the parentheses from the claims would overcome this rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-9, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Nguyen et al. (“Li7La3Zr2O12 Garnet Solid Polymer Electrolyte for Highly Stable All-Solid-State Batteries”, Frontiers in Chemistry, 18 Jan 2021, pp 1-10).
With regard to claims 1 and 13, Nguyen et al. disclose a Li ion battery having a solid electrolyte layer separating a cathode active material layer from an anode active material layer. The electrolyte contains Li7La3Zr2O12 (LLZO) particles as a high ionic oxide solid electrolyte mixed with an organic ion conducting binder (LiFePO4-SuperP-PEO-LiTFSi) for binding to the electrode active materials (see sections “Fabrication of the electrolyte membrane” on pp 2-3 and “Battery performance in Full-Cell Testing” on p. 3).
With regard to claim 2, LLZO, the inorganic ion conductor, is present in an amount of 10wt% based on the total weight of the composite binder (see section “Fabrication of the electrolyte membrane” on p 2).
With regard to claim 3, LLZO particles are spherical and have a particle size of 35nm (see p.4).
Claim 8 is met by the disclosure of LLZO, as noted above.
Claim 9 is met by the disclosure of PEO-LiTFSi, as noted above.
With regard to claim 14, the composite positive electrode taught by Nguyen et al. includes Super-P (see p 3, top right paragraph). Super-P is a conductive carbon black and meets the limitation requiring an added “conductive material.”
With regard to claim 15, LLZO has a garnet-type crystal structure (see p. 4).
Claim 16 is met by Nguyen’s disclosure of polyethylene oxide (PEO) as the organic ion conductor, as noted above.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9, 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Liu et al. (“Ionic Conductivity Enhancement of Polymer Electrolytes with Ceramic Nanowire Fillers, Nano Letters, 2015, 15, 2740-2745).
With regard to claims 1 and 13, Liu et al. disclose a Li ion battery having a solid electrolyte layer separating a cathode active material layer from an anode active material layer. The electrolyte contains LLTO nanowires as a high ionic inorganic solid electrolyte material mixed with an organic ion conducting binder (PAN-LiClO4) for binding to the electrode active materials (see pp 2740-2741).
With regard to claim 2, see disclosure of 5-20 wt% LLTO in Fig. 3a.
With regard to claims 8-9 and 16, the polymer binder is formed from polyacrylonitrile including the Li salt, LiClO4 and an oxide-based inorganic ion conductor, LLTO (see p 2742, for instance).
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 9, 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Pan et al. (“2D MXene-containing polymer electrolytes for all-solid-state lithium metal batteries”, Nanoscale Adv, 2019, 1, pp 395-402).
With regard to claims 1 and 13, Pan et al. disclose a Li ion battery having a solid electrolyte layer separating a cathode active material layer from an anode active material layer. The electrolyte contains MXene particles of Ti3C2Tx as a high ionic inorganic solid electrolyte mixed with an organic ion conducting binder (PEO-LiTFSi) for binding to the electrode active materials (see Experimental section on p 396).
With regard to claim 2, MXene is present in an amount of 7 weight percent based on the total weight of the binder (See Table 1).
With regard to claim 5, Pan et al. teaches that the MXene is a 2D nanoparticle with a flake structure, a thickness of 1 nm and lengths on the order of less than 500nm (see first full paragraph on p. 396; last paragraph on p. 397 and Fig 2a-2b). Thus, a max area of the particles would be (500 nm) x (500nm) or 0.25 µm2.
With regard to claim 9 and 16, the polymer binder is formed from polyethylene oxide and an Li salt (see disclosure of PEO-LiTFSi).
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.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected 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).
With regard to claim 6, Nguyen et al. do not disclose the particular weight concentration of the composite binder as based on a total weight of the composite positive or negative electrodes. However, it would have been obvious and within the level of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the optimal content of the composite binder in order to achieve the desired balance between ion-conductivity and energy density of the cell.
With regard to claim 7, Nguyen et al. disclose a composite positive electrode containing a conductive material (Super-P) in an amount of 10 wt% of the active material. The reference does not disclose the claimed range of “1 to 5 wt% based on a total weight of the composite positive electrode.” However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal amount of conductive material to add to the composite positive electrode in order to maximize electrical conductivity while also maximizing the amount of the active material present in the positive electrode.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected 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).
Liu et al. disclose a Li ion battery having a solid electrolyte layer separating a cathode active material layer from an anode active material layer as detailed above. The references discloses LLTO nanowires having diameters ranging from about 150-450 microns and teaches that the nanowires desirably have “large aspect ratios” in order to create continuous ionic transport pathways through longer distances (See last paragraph on p. 2740). However, the reference fails to specifically disclose the claimed aspect ratio range of 20-1000.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the aspect ratio of the nanowires taught by Liu et al. in view of the teaching therein that the length of the particles affects efficiency of ionic transport in the solid electrolyte.
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