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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/18/2026 has been entered. Claim 2 is canceled, Claims 1 is amended and Claims 1, 3, 6-12 and 19 are pending.
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” in view of Chang et al. (KR 20180015843 A – Machine Translation), hereinafter “Chang” and Kim et al. (US 20210336294 A1), hereinafter “Kim”. Lee, Chang and Kim et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely solid electrolyte materials.
In regard to Claims 1, 3 and 6, Lee et al. discloses a solid electrolyte sheet comprising: a porous polymer film comprising a plurality of pores wherein the porous polymer film comprises a nonwoven fabric (Lee, Paragraph [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]) wherein the solid electrolyte comprises a sulfide-based solid electrolyte (Lee, Paragraphs [0117-0118]) 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]), which overlaps the claimed range. Lee et al. also discloses 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 provides a reasonable expectation of success for nearby values.
Further, 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.
While Lee discloses the polymer in the gel polymer electrolyte in a preferred range which overlaps the claimed range and a specific example which has a polymer loading close to the same range it is silent on an example with a polymer loading explicitly in the same range.
Chang et al. discloses a solid electrolyte sheet comprising a porous polymer film comprising a plurality of pores; and a hybrid solid electrolyte layer disposed on at least one surface of the porous polymer film, wherein the hybrid solid electrolyte layer comprises a solid electrolyte and a gel polymer electrolyte, wherein the gel polymer electrolyte comprises a polymer comprising an acrylate repeating unit (Chang, Abstract) with a specific example wherein the gel polymer electrolyte comprises the polymer in an amount of 2% (Chang, Example 1), which anticipates the claimed range.
Further, the low loading polymer gel electrolyte of Chang is taught as having a high ionic conductivity and an excellent dislocation stability as evidenced by Table 2 of Chang. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the polymer in the gel polymer of Lee in an amount taught in Chang as doing so would fall within the preferred ranges already disclosed in Lee, would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Chang and would amount to nothing more than an obvious variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Lastly, while the skilled artisan of both Lee and Chang provide porous nonwoven fabric, they are silent as to the pore size of the fabric. Kim et al. discloses a solid electrolyte sheet comprising a beneficial porous polymer film comprising a plurality of pores; and a hybrid solid electrolyte layer disposed on at least one surface of the porous polymer film, wherein the hybrid solid electrolyte layer comprises a sulfide solid electrolyte and/or a gel polymer electrolyte wherein the porous polymer film comprises a nonwoven fabric and the pore size of the non-woven fabric are 10 µm or less, which overlaps the claimed range with a specific example of a non-woven fabric with 10 µm pores which anticipates the claimed range (Kim, Abstract, [0046, 0079, 0081, 0086]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the porous non-woven fabrics of Lee and Chang with pore sizes in the range taught in Kim et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of success and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known component to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way
In regard to Claim 7, Lee in view of Chang and Kim 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 in view of Chang and Kim 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 in view of Chang and Kim 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 in view of Chang and Kim 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 in view of Chang and Kim 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 in view of Chang and Kim 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 in view of Chang and Kim 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 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not moot as the new ground of rejection also relies on references not previously presented in the rejection of record.
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 and is further demonstrated in Chang et al. as discussed in the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection above. The skilled artisan of Lee already provides the non-woven fabric, the sulfide SSE, the lithium salt, the glyme and the gel polymer electrolyte with acrylate repeating units in their hybrid solid electrolyte sheet and already contemplates a variation in the polymer loading of the gel polymer electrolyte within a preferred range and thus would reasonably look to Chang as an example of a lower loading (2wt%) of polymer in a beneficial gel polymer electrolyte with high ionic conductivity which would be obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
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
/JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights