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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/11/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-5, 11-12 & 18-19 are amended. Claims 2-3 are canceled. Claims 1 & 4-21 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, 12-15, 17 & 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fanous (US 2017/0117547 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 10, 14-15, 17 & 20-21, 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) ([0083]-[0095]); at least one polymer having recurring unit derived from alkylene carbonate ([0296]-[0298]); and a lithium salt such as LiPF6 ([0098] & [0360]-[0363]), 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]).
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]).
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 11 & 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fanous (US 2017/0117547 A1).
Regarding claim 11 & 18-19, Fanous teaches the solid composite electrolyte of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach wherein the wt% of the at least one lithium salt in the at least one polymer varying from 10 wt% to 40 wt%. However, Fanous 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]). Fanous further teaches such a range being optimal in terms of the effective mobile charge carriers, and in terms of mobility as a function of glass temperature ([0363]). Thus, the content of the at least one lithium salt with respect to the content of the polymer is a result effective variable which affects the quantity of effective mobile charge carriers as well as the mobility as a function of the glass temperature. “[A]fter KSR, the presence of a known result effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”. See MPEP 2144.05 II (B).
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 with respect to claims 1 & 4-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. As noted in the above updated rejection, the subject matter of claims 1, 6, 9-15 & 17-21 is found to be anticipated or obvious over the teachings of Fanous with claims 4-5 & 7 found obvious further in view of Villaluenga and claims 8 and 16 found to be obvious further in view of Nakanishi and Hegde respectively. Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 1 & 4-21 stand rejected.
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
Prosecution Insights