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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 12 & 18-19 are amended. Claims 2-3, 11 & 20 are canceled. Claim 22 is newly added. Claims 1, 4-10, 12-19 & 21-22 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 6, 9-10, 11-15, 17-19 & 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fanous (US 2017/0117547 A1) and evidenced by Chen (US 2025/0140919 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 10-11, 14-15, 17-19 & 21, Fanous teaches a solid state battery comprising an electrode (fig. 1; [0399]-[0405]) comprising a solid composite electrolyte comprising at least one sulfide-based solid ionic conducting inorganic particles such as Argyrodite type Li6PS5Y (where Y is Cl, Br, or I) dispersed within a polymer electrolyte (fig. 1; [0083]-[0095]); at least one (co)polymer having recurring unit derived from alkylene carbonate ([0296]-[0298] & [0303]-[0307]); and a lithium salt such as LiPF6 ([0098] & [0360]-[0363]), and a polar aprotic solvent including ethers or carbonates typically used in liquid electrolytes ([0367]-[0368]), and wherein the solid ionic conducting inorganic particle is from 70 wt% to 90 wt% based on the total weight of the solid composite electrolyte and wherein the at least one lithium salt and the at least one polymer form a polymer electrolyte which is present in an amount ranging from 10 wt% to 30 wt% based on the total weight of the solid composite electrolyte ([0376]). Fanous does not explicitly teach the wt% of the at least one lithium salt in the at least one polymer varying from 10 wt% to 40 wt% but discloses that “the stoichiometric ratio of lithium ions of the at least one lithium conducting salt to repeating units respectively of the polymer electrolyte or polymer can be, for example, in a range from 2:1 to 1:100” ([0363]). Using LiPF6 (151.9 g/mol) and ethylene carbonate (88.1 g/mol) as examples of a suitable salt and a suitable recurring unit for the polymer having a recurring units derived from alkylene carbonate, respectively, the wt% of the salt in the polymer electrolyte can be calculated based on the disclosed range of the ratio of lithium ions of the at least one lithium conducting salt to repeating units of the polymer of 2:1 to 1:100 in Fanous as follows: At a 2:1 molar ratio, the wt% of the salt in the polymer electrolyte is: [(2*151.9 g/mol)/(2*151.9 g/mol + 1*88.1 g/mol)] = 77.5 wt%. At a 100:1 molar ratio, the wt% of the salt in the polymer electrolyte is: [(1*151.9 g/mol)/(1*151.9 g/mol + 100*88.1 g/mol)] = 1.70 wt%. Thus, Fanous discloses a content of the salt in the polymer electrolyte ranging from 1.70 wt% to 77.5 wt% which encompasses the ranges recited in claims 1 & 18-19. While Fanous does not explicitly teach the at least one copolymer and the at least one lithium salt being soluble in a polar aprotic solvent, it is noted that the ether and carbonate based solvents in Fanous typically used in liquid electrolytes of batteries encompass compounds such as ethylene carbonate (EC) and propylene carbonate (PC) (i.e both commonly used carbonates as solvents for liquid electrolytes) which constitute polar aprotic solvents known to dissolve lithium salts such as LiPF6 and various copolymer systems. In this instance, since Fanous discloses copolymers which can include recurring units based on alkylene carbonates, the copolymer would be expected to be soluble in carbonate-based solvents as described in Fanous because the carbonate solvent can have dipole-dipole interaction with the carbonate portion of the copolymer ensuring solvation by the carbonate solvent. Notwithstanding, Chen evidences the fact that homopolymer or copolymers comprising recurring units of an alkylene carbonate and lithium salts are soluble in polar aprotic solvents ([0052] & [0062]).
Regarding claims 6 & 9, Fanous teaches the at least one polymer comprising recurring units derived from a carbonate such as ethylene carbonate or an methacrylate ([0160]-[0161], [0173] & [0177]-[0178]).
Regarding claims 12-13, Fanous teaches a composition for manufacturing a solid composite electrolyte comprising: at least one polymer, at least one sulfide-based solid ion conducting inorganic particle, at least one lithium salt according to claim 1; and at least one polar aprotic solvent including ethers and esters, wherein the composition is a slurry ([0083]-[0096], [0098], [0296]-[0298], [0360]-[0363], [0367]-[0368], [0376] & [0392]).
Regarding claim 22, Fanous teaches the solid composite electrolyte of claim 1 but is silent as to the electrolyte exhibiting an ionic conductivity greater than 0.1 mS/cm. However, Fanous teaches an electrolyte having substantially the same composition as that of the present invention as noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. Accordingly, Fanous’s electrolyte would be expected to inherently exhibit an ionic conductivity greater than 0.1 mS/cm. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
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.
Claims 4-5 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fanous (US 2017/0117547 A1) in view of Villaluenga (US 2021/0194047 A1).
Regarding claims 4-5 & 7, Fanous teaches the solid composite electrolyte of claim 1 but is silent as to the at least one polymer comprising (a) and (b), as recited in claims 4-5; and comprising recurring units derived from acrylonitrile and recurring units derived from styrene, butadiene, acrylate, methyl acrylate, vinyl acetate or mixtures thereof as recited in claim 7. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a polymer such as PTFE, PVDF or ABS (i.e polymer based on acrylonitrile, butadiene and styrene) comprising recurring units derived from acrylonitrile and recurring units derived from styrene, butadiene or acrylate as a suitable polymer for forming a composite solid electrolyte including sulfide-based solid ionic conducting inorganic particles as taught by Villaluenga (Table 2; [0036]-[0039], [0053], [0069], [0073]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fanous (US 2017/0117547 A1) in view of Nakanishi (US 2007/0059597 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Fanous teaches the solid composite electrolyte of claim 1, wherein the at least one polymer can comprise a polysiloxane ([0160]-[0161]) but is silent as to the at least one polymer comprising recurring units derived from dimethyl dichlorosilane, methyl trimethoxysilane, methyl trichlorosilane or mixtures thereof. However, one of ordinary skill in the art readily understands that polysiloxane can comprise recurring units derived from dimethyldichlorosilane or methyltrichlorosilane as evidenced by Nakanishi ([0026]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fanous (US 2017/0117547 A1) in view of Hegde (US 2019/0088991 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Fanous teaches the solid composite electrolyte of claim 1 but is silent as to the at least one solid ionic conducting inorganic particle being one selected from the group recited in claim 16. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use Li7P2S8I in place of Li6PS5Cl as an art recognized equivalent for the same intended purpose (i.e solid state electrolyte for lithium batteries) as taught by Hegde ([0021]). “In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art, and cannot be based on applicant’s disclosure or the mere fact that the components at issue are functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958)”. See MPEP 2144.05 II (B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments that Fanous does fairly teach or suggest the claimed content of the salt in the polymer electrolyte ranging from 10 wt% to 80 wt%, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the updated rejection of claim 1 above, Fanous discloses a content of the lithium salt in the polymer electrolyte based on a ratio of lithium ions of the at least one lithium conducting salt to repeating units respectively of the polymer electrolyte or polymer ranging from 2:1 to 1:100 ([0363]). Using LiPF6 (151.9 g/mol) and ethylene carbonate (88.1 g/mol) as examples of a suitable salt and a suitable recurring unit for the polymer having a recurring units derived from alkylene carbonate, respectively, the wt% of the salt in the polymer electrolyte can be calculated based on the disclosed range of the above ratio of of 2:1 to 1:100 to obtain a content of the salt in the polymer electrolyte ranging from 1.70 wt% to 77.5 wt% which encompasses the ranges recited in claims 1 & 18-19. Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 1, 4-10, 12-19 & 21-22 stand rejected.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm (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, BARBARA GILLIAM can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
