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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/26/2025 has been entered. Claims 4-5 are canceled, Claims 1, 6-8 and 12 are amended and Claims 1-3,6-12 and 19 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 112(b) rejection for Claim 5 is withdrawn as Claim 5 is canceled.
The 112 (d) rejection for Claim 6 is withdrawn in view of the amendment to Claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2020171483 A1 - Machine Translation), hereinafter “Lee”. Lee et al. is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because it pertains to the same field of endeavor, namely solid electrolyte materials.
In regard to Claim 1, Lee et al. discloses a solid electrolyte sheet comprising: a porous polymer film comprising a plurality of pores (Lee, Paragraphs [0206-0207]) and a hybrid solid electrolyte layer disposed on at least one surface of the porous polymer film (Lee, Paragraphs [0209, 0213]). Lee et al. also discloses wherein the hybrid solid electrolyte layer comprises a solid electrolyte (Lee, Paragraph [0209]) and a gel polymer electrolyte is applied to the solid electrolyte (Lee, Paragraph [0197, 0213]). Lee et al. further discloses wherein the gel polymer electrolyte comprises a polymer comprising an acrylate repeating unit (Lee, Paragraph [0159-0163]) and an ionic sorbate liquid, i.e. a solvent + dissociable liquid (Lee, Paragraph [0156]). Lee et al. also discloses wherein the polymer in the gel polymer electrolyte is present in an amount of about 1-50%, more preferably 2-40% by weight, based on the total weight of the gel polymer electrolyte (Lee, Paragraph [0159]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 2, Lee et al. discloses the solid electrolyte sheet according to claim 1. Lee et al. also discloses wherein the porous polymer film comprises a nonwoven fabric (Lee, Paragraph [0206-0207]).
In regard to Claim 3, Lee et al. discloses the solid electrolyte sheet according to claim 1. Lee et al. also discloses wherein the solid electrolyte comprises a sulfide-based solid electrolyte (Lee, Paragraphs [0117-0118]).
In regard to Claim 6, Lee et al. discloses the solid electrolyte sheet according to claim 1. While Lee et al. discloses the wt % of the polymer in the gel polymer electrolyte based on the total weight of the gel polymer electrolyte, it fails to explicitly disclose the wt% of the polymer in the gel polymer electrolyte based on the total weight of the solid electrolyte + the gel polymer electrolyte. However, based on the components, thickness and weight percentages disclosed in the specific examples in Lee, a calculation of the wt% of the polymer based on the total weight of the solid electrolyte + gel polymer electrolyte can be estimated to range from about 1.26% - 6.86% by weight (Lee, Examples 1-3), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 7, Lee et al. discloses the solid electrolyte sheet according to claim 1. Lee et al. also discloses a specific example wherein the acrylate repeating unit comprises ethoxylated trimethylolpropane triacrylate (ETPTA) (Lee, Example 1).
In regard to Claim 8, Lee et al. discloses the solid electrolyte sheet according to claim 1. Lee et al. also discloses wherein the ionic sorbate liquid comprises a lithium salt (Lee, Paragraph [0165-0166]) and a glyme (Lee, Paragraph [0168, 0172-0173]).
In regard to Claim 9, Lee et al. discloses the solid electrolyte sheet according to claim 8. Lee et al. also discloses a specific example wherein the lithium salt comprises LiPF6 (Lee, Example 1).
In regard to Claim 10, Lee et al. discloses the solid electrolyte sheet according to claim 8. Lee et al. also discloses diglyme and tetraglyme as preferred glyme solvents (Lee, Paragraphs [0075-0076]).
In regard to Claim 11, Lee et al. discloses the solid electrolyte sheet according to claim 1. Lee et al. also discloses a specific example wherein the solid electrolyte + gel polymer electrolyte layer coated on the nonwoven fabric has a thickness of 101 µm (Lee, Example 1), which anticipates the claimed range.
In regard to Claim 12, Lee et al. discloses the solid electrolyte sheet according to claim 1. Lee et al. also discloses the solid electrolyte + gel electrolyte layer has ionic conductivity ranging from 10-7 to 10-2 S/cm at room temperature (Lee, Paragraphs [0007-0008]), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 19, Lee et al. discloses the solid electrolyte sheet according to claim 1. Lee et al. also discloses an all-solid-state battery comprising a solid electrolyte sheet of claim 1 (Lee, Paragraphs [0331-0332]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amended claim 1 limitation of the amount of polymer comprising an acrylate repeating unit in the gel polymer electrolyte based on the total weight of the GPE is disclosed in Lee et al. wherein the general range 1-50% includes 1-3.5%, which overlaps the claimed range. Further, the polymer content in the GPE is a result effective variable which would reasonably be optimized by the skilled artisan, as it predictably affects viscosity, processability, mechanical strength, ionic conductivity, and interfacial resistance at a minimum and thus, it is not inventive to determine optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, In re Aller, see MPEP§2144.05. Lastly, there is a specific example in Lee wherein the polymer is provided at 5 wt% (Lee,Example 1), which is reasonably close to the claimed range of “about 3.5%” and demonstrates operability near the claimed ranges, which provides a reasonable expectation of success for nearby values.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725