DETAILED ACTION
Application 17/960691, “SOLID ELECTROLYTE FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME, AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY”, was filed with the USPTO on 10/5/22 and claims priority from a foreign application filed on 10/8/21.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 8/29/25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 8/29/25 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant presents the following arguments.
The lack of clarity rejection based on the “such as” language previously included in claim 1 has been withdrawn in view of the 8/29/25 amendment; however, a new lack of clarity rejection is presented in light of the added language.
Claim 1 requires a solid electrolyte comprising two polymers, however, a dual-polymer composition is not disclosed or suggested by Wang. In response, Wang teaches that the polymer may comprise two or more polymers at least at paragraph [0094], thus a dual-polymer composition is indeed suggested by Wang. The ground(s) of rejection have been modified, relying on Wang’s teaching that more than one polymer may be included, in order to teach the presently claimed first and second polymers.
The language, “wherein the first polymer and the second polymer are uniformly blended in the solid electrolyte” explicitly indicates that the polymers are not covalently bonded as a single polymer. In response, “uniformly blended” does not explicitly indicate that the polymers are not covalently bonded. Applicant argues features that are not positively recited or reasonably implied by the claim language.
A person having skill in the art would understand that the “homogeneous solution” of paragraph [0071], corresponding to applicant’s Example 1, implies a uniform blend of the polymers resulting in the electrolyte membrane. In response, the “homogeneous solution” described in paragraph [0071] appears to refer to the mixture used to form the “second polymer” of the instantly claimed product, while the “first polymer” appears to correspond to the polytetrafluoroethylene template. This interpretation is supported by paragraph [0071] describing “a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride and hexafluoropropylene (P(VDF-HFP))-poly(2-vinyl-1,3-dioxolane) (PDOL)-butanedinitrile (SN)-lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI)”, with “copolymer” understood to be a single polymer made up of different monomeric units, not a uniform blend of two different polymers. Applicant has argued that a “uniformly blended” structure would not include covalent bonds (page 8, first paragraph), supporting a position that the copolymer of paragraph [0071] cannot correspond to the first and second polymers of the claimed invention. Presuming this understanding is accurate, the paragraph [0071] does not support first polymer and second polymer which are uniformly blended, as claimed.
Rejections under 35 USC § 112 are presented below because the presently claimed invention is unclear and apparently unsupported by the originally filed disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the originally filed disclosure does not support the added limitation, “wherein the first polymer and the second polymer are uniformly blended in the solid electrolyte”. Instead, the as-filed application supports a polymer matrix, which may be a first polymer, and an additive, which may be a second polymer, but the polymer matrix and additive appear to be distinct phases rather than a uniform blend. The originally filed application does not use the words “uniform” or “blend”; therefore, any scope implied by these terms is not necessarily supported by the originally filed specification.
Applicant’s 8/29/25 remarks suggest that applicant’s Example 1 (as filed paragraphs [0070-0071]) is relied on for support of the added limitation. However, Example 1 describes a manufacturing process including pouring a solution of additive [second polymer] into a template of polytetrafluoroethylene [presumably a first polymer matrix]. This portion of the disclosure does not suggest that the first polymer and the second polymer are uniformly blended in the solid electrolyte as presently claimed.
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 1-4 and 6 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation, “A solid electrolyte… comprising: a first polymer, which is a polymer matrix… and a second polymer… wherein the first polymer and the second polymer are uniformly blended in the solid electrolyte” is unclear because it is an apparent contradiction. More specifically, a “polymer matrix” is normally understood to be an extended distinct form, such as a template, in which another material could be held, embedded or penetrated. To the contrary, “uniformly blended” implies creation of a homogenous phase by blending two or more materials. It is unclear what is meant by the presently claimed structure which includes a polymer matrix but is uniformly blended.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wang (US 2022/0173396).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a solid electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery (“solid-electrolyte interphase”, title), comprising a lithium salt (“metal salts”, paragraph [0028]; “lithium salts”, paragraph [0195]), a nitrile compound (paragraph [0255] describes inclusion of a nitrile compound as an initiator),
a first polymer which is a polymer matrix (paragraph [0008] describes a polymer comprised of a main polymer chain, readable on the first polymer which is a polymer matrix), and
a second polymer (paragraph [0094] teaches that the polymer referred to by Wang may optionally include two polymers),
wherein the second polymer is at least one selected from a polymer or a copolymer polymerized from a monomer represented by the following Formula (1), and a polymer represented by the following Formula (2) as defined in claim 1 (“2-vinyl-1,3-dioxolane” at paragraph [0255] is a monomer consistent with Formula 1).
Wang further teaches the solid electrolyte comprising a first polymer, which is a polymer matrix, and a second polymer which is at least one selected from a polymer or a copolymer polymerized from a monomer represented by the following Formula (1), and a polymer represented by the following Formula (2) as defined in claim 1 (“2-vinyl-1,3-dioxolane” at paragraph [0255] is a monomer consistent with Formula 1).
Wang teaches that the mentioned polymers may include two or more such polymers (paragraph [0182]), satisfying the requirement that the solid electrolyte includes first and second polymers, but does not expressly teach wherein the first and the second polymers are uniformly blended in the solid electrolyte.
However, Wang does teach that the in any of the aspects of the invention, the solid-electrolyte interphase layer [readable on the solid electrolyte] may be configured to be homogeneous (paragraph [0021]), and teaches that an inhomogeneous layer may be undesirable, such as in terms of uneven lithium deposition and dendrite growth (paragraph [0004]).
Therefore, for the embodiments which utilize two or more polymers as suggested by paragraph [0182], it would have been obvious to uniformly blend the polymers in order to provide a solid electrolyte layer having a homogeneous nature for better evenness of the layer as taught by Wang.
Regarding claim 2, Wang remains as applied to claim 1. Wang does not expressly teach the solid electrolyte comprising 5 to 200 parts by mass of the lithium salt, 10 to 500 parts by mass of the nitrile compound, and 20 to 100 parts by mass of the second polymer with respect to 100 parts by mass of the first polymer/polymer matrix.
However, it has been held that “[g]enerally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.” (MPEP 2144.05 IIA)
In this case, applicant’s as-filed specification suggests that the constituents are provided in the indicated ranges for the benefit of providing desirable dendrite resistance and mechanical strength (applicant’s published paragraphs [0012-0013). Although Wang does not expressly teach the same concentration for each constituent, Wang does teach his invention is configured to inhibit dendrite propagation and provide desirable mechanical strength (paragraph [0004, 0293, 0211]).
Therefore, notwithstanding an express teaching that the constituent of the individual constituents lies within the claimed ranges, the claimed invention is found to be obvious because the selected concentrations do not provide a substantial functional difference, as Wang teaches the same advantages as applicant achieves by optimizing the ranges of the constituents.
Regarding claim 3, Wang remains as applied to claim 1. Wang further teaches the solid electrolyte according to claim 1, wherein the weight average molecular weight of the second polymer is 1000 to 1000000 g/mol (paragraph [0257] teaches an second polymer having molecular weight of 12,000 g/mol).
Regarding claim 4, Wang remains as applied to claim 1. Wang further teaches the solid electrolyte according to claim 1, wherein the second polymer is poly(2-vinyl-1,3-dioxolane), or a copolymer of 2-vinyl-1,3-dioxolane and 1-vinyl-3-ethyl-bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imidazole (paragraph [0255], where a poly (2-vinyl-1,3-dioxolane), or at least a copolymer obvious variant thereof, is achieved by polymerization of the monomer 2-vinyl-1,3-dioxolane).
Regarding claim 6, Wang remains as applied to claim 1. Wang further teaches lithium secondary battery, comprising the solid electrolyte according to claim 1 (abstract, paragraph [0023]).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 PM (EST).
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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached on (571)270-7078. 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.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723