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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/06/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 & 8 are amended. Claims 2, 4, 6, 12, 14 & 16 are canceled. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-11, 13, 15 & 17 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-11, 13, 15 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada (US 2023/0231182 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 8-11, 13 & 15, Yamada teaches a solid electrolyte free-standing membrane having a thickness of 150 microns for an all-solid state battery, comprising an amount of preferably 95% to 99% by weight of a sulfide-based solid electrolyte and an amount of preferably 1% to 5% by weight of a fibrillated polymer such as PTFE having a diameter of 15 nm to 70 nm and comprising PTFE ([0007], [0017]-[0019], [0044]-[0047] & [0161]-[0164]), wherein the solid electrolyte membrane is produced by: preparing a mixture excluding a solvent and comprising a sulfide-based solid electrolyte and a polymer powder such as PTFE capable of fibrillating and having an average diameter (D50) of 300 microns to 700 microns; applying a shear stress to the mixture so that the mixture becomes clay and the polymer powder undergoes fibrillation; and forming the clay into a film to obtain the solid electrolyte free-standing membrane ([0037]-[0038] & [0107]-[0111]). Yamada is silent as to a lithium ion conductivity of the solid electrolyte membrane being about 2.51 S/cm or more and does not explicitly teach the solid electrolyte free-standing membrane being divided into area 1, area 2 and area 3 along a thickness direction from one surface with respect to a cross section thereof, wherein thickness ratio of the area 1, area 2 and area 3 is 1 : 2.5 : 3.5, and wherein when content of elemental sulfur in area 1 is represented as 100, content of element sulfur in each of area 2 and area 3 are in range of about 80 to 120. However, as noted above, the maximum preferred content of the fibrillated polymer in the membrane is 5% by mass (where the corresponding minimum preferred content of the solid electrolyte is 95% by mass). Accordingly, when Yamada’s membrane thickness is divided in 7 equal parts such that the top 1/7th of the thickness of the membrane is arbitrarily set as area 1, the next 2.5/7th of the thickness of the membrane is arbitrarily set as area 2, and the last 3.5/7th of the thickness of the membrane is arbitrarily set as area 3, the minimum content of the solid electrolyte that can be contained in each area would be 95% by mass. For instance, when all of the polymer binder in the membrane is contained in either one of areas 1, 2 or 3, the resulting content of the solid electrolyte in the other two areas would be 100% by mass. Therefore, the difference in the content of the solid electrolyte in any two of the areas 1, 2 and 3 would be from 0% by mass (i.e case where the solid electrolyte and polymer are uniformly distributed throughout the thickness) to 5% by mass (i.e case where all the polymer is contained in one of the areas are described above). If we denote, the content of elemental sulfur in each solid electrolyte particle as X (where X is a percentage), the content of elemental sulfur in each area 1, 2 and 3 would be X multiplied by the solid electrolyte content in the respective area. Thus, if the content of elemental sulfur in area 1 is denoted as 100, the content of element sulfur in each area 2 and 3 would be in a range of about 95:105. While Yamada is silent as to the ionic conductivity, it is noted that Yamada discloses a solid electrolyte membrane having substantially the same composition (i.e same material and content of the solid electrolyte and polymer in the free-standing membrane as the claimed invention) and structure (i.e free-standing membrane with the same thickness in which a fibrillated polymer with the claimed diameter and solid electrolyte are mixed). “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. Accordingly, the claimed ionic conductivity would be expected to be inherently present in Yamada’s membrane.
Regarding claims 7 & 17, Yamada teaches the solid electrolyte and method of respective claims 1 & 8 but is silent as to a tensile strength of about 0.5 MPa or more and a breaking elongation of about 29.6% or more for the solid electrolyte free-standing membrane. However, Yamada discloses a solid electrolyte membrane having substantially the same composition (i.e same material and content of the solid electrolyte and polymer in the free-standing membrane as the claimed invention) and structure (i.e free-standing membrane in which a fibrillated polymer with the claimed diameter and solid electrolyte as mixed). “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. Accordingly, the claimed tensile strength and breaking elongation would be expected to be inherently present in Yamada’s membrane.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 & 8 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. The amendments to instant claims 1 & 8 have prompted a new ground of rejection in view of the newly cited Yamada reference. The subject matter of claims 1, 3, 5, 7-11, 13, 15 & 17 is found to be anticipated by the teachings of Yamada.
Thus, in view of foregoing, claims 1, 3, 5, 7-11, 13, 15 & 17 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