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 & 5 are amended. Claims 2-3 are canceled. Claims 16-21 are newly added. 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, 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, 17 & 20-21, Fanous teaches 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 ([0098], [0317] & [0360]), wherein the solid ionic conducting inorganic particle is from 70 wt% to 90 wt% based on the total weight of the solid composite electrolyte ([0376]).
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 1, 4-7, 9-15 & 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (CN 109904514 A, as cited in the IDS on 01/17/2023) in view of Fanous (US 2017/0117547 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 4-7, 9-11, 14-15 & 17-18, Du teaches a solid state battery comprising a solid composite electrolyte (CSE) comprising: i) at least one polymer selected from the group consisting of polymers having a recurring units derived from VDF, propylene carbonate or acrylate; ii) at least one sulfide-based solid ionic conducting inorganic particle such as (Li2S)x-(P2S5)y present in an amount of 20%-50% by weight based on the total weight of the CSE with exemplary embodiments using 40% and 50%; iii) at least one lithium salt such as LiFSI present in an amount of 25 wt% and 35 wt% in exemplary embodiments (Examples 5-6; Page 14 of CN 109904514 A provided in the IDS), wherein a content of the lithium salt in the at least one polymer is 50 wt% in one embodiment (Example 6). Du is silent as to the sulfide-based solid ionic conducting inorganic particle being selected from the groups recited in claim 1. However, one of ordinary skill in the art readily understands that sulfide-based solid ionic conducting inorganic particles such as Argyrodite type Li6PS5Y (where Y is Cl, Br, or I) and (Li2S)x-(P2S5)y are art recognized equivalents for the same intended purpose (i.e functioning as ionic conductors in lithium-ion batteries) as taught by Fanous ([0083]-[0095]). “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).
Regarding claims 12-13, Du teaches a slurry for manufacturing a CSE comprising: i) at least one polymer; ii) at least one sulfide based solid ionic conducting inorganic particle; iii) at least one lithium salt; and iv) at least one polar aprotic solvent such as acetonitrile (Examples 5-6).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (CN 109904514 A) and Fanous (US 2017/0117547 A1), as applied to claims 1, 4-7, 9-15 & 17-18 above, and further in view of Nakanishi (US 2007/0059597 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Du as modified by Fanous teaches the solid composite electrolyte of claim 1, wherein the at least one polymer can comprise polysiloxane 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]).
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).
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 presently recited, the subject matter of claim 1 is found to be anticipated by Fanous and obvious over the combined teachings of Du and Fanous as noted in the above updated rejection. Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 1 & 4-21 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