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 & 8 are amended. Claims 4 & 14 is canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-13 & 15-17 are currently 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-13 & 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finsy (WO 2021/043493 A1 as cited in the IDS on 12/12/2022, and hereinafter using, for citation purposes, corresponding US 2022/0278362 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, 8 & 10-13, Finsy teaches a solid electrolyte free-standing membrane for an all-solid state battery, comprising an amount of 85% to 98.5% by weight of a sulfide-based solid electrolyte and an amount of about 1.5% to 15% by weight of a fibrillated polymer having a diameter of about 0.01 micron to 10 microns and comprising PTFE ([0028]-[0029], [0047]-[0063] & [0088]; Examples 2-7), wherein the solid electrolyte is produced by: preparing a mixture excluding a solvent and comprising a sulfide-based solid electrolyte and a polymer powder capable of fibrillating; 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 ([0113]-[0115]). Finsy 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, it is noted that Finsy teaches homogenizing the mixture of the sulfide-based solid electrolyte and the polymer (Examples 2-7). Accordingly, for any thickness of Finsy’s solid electrolyte free-standing membrane, the membrane can be 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 3/7th of the thickness of the membrane is arbitrarily set as area 3. Since Finsy teaches a homogenized mixture forming the membrane, the content of the solid electrolyte in the membrane (i.e 85% to 98.5%) would be expected to be approximately the same as the content of the solid electrolyte in each of areas 1, 2 and 3 of Finsy. Accordingly, the sulfur content in area 1, area 2 and area 3 would be expected to be approximately the same since the sulfide-based solid electrolyte is present in a homogeneous mixture.
Regarding claims 5 & 15, Finsy teaches the solid electrolyte and method of respective claims 1 & 8, wherein the solid electrolyte membrane has a thickness of 10 microns to 150 microns ([0089]) which overlaps with the presently claimed range.
Regarding claims 6 & 16, Finsy teaches the solid electrolyte and method of respective claims 1 & 8, wherein a lithium-ion conductivity of the solid electrolyte free-standing membrane is 0.15 mS/cm or more (Table 2: Examples 2-7).
Regarding claims 7 & 17, Finsy 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, Finsy 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.
Regarding claim 9, Finsy teaches the method of claim 9 but does not exlictily teach a polymer powder capable of fibrillating having an average diameter of about 1 micron to 1000 microns. However, the polymer powder capable of fibrillating used in Finsy’s exemplary embodiments is Algoflon DF132 F which is known to have an average particle size of 600 microns.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant’s arguments that Finsy does not fairly teach or suggest the claimed content of elemental sulfur in area 1, area 2 and area 3 of the membrane, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the above updated rejection of claim 1, for any thickness of Finsy’s solid electrolyte free-standing membrane, the membrane can be 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 3/7th of the thickness of the membrane is arbitrarily set as area 3. Since Finsy teaches a homogenized mixture forming the membrane, the content of the solid electrolyte in the membrane (i.e 85% to 98.5%) would be expected to be approximately the same as the content of the solid electrolyte in each of areas 1, 2 and 3 of Finsy. Accordingly, the content of elemental sulfur in area 1, area 2 and area 3 would be expected to be approximately the same (and also approximately equal to the elemental sulfur content in the membrane) since the membrane is formed from a homogenous mixture of fibrillated polymer and the sulfide-based solid electrolyte (i.e only component comprising elemental sulfur). Thus, in view of foregoing, claims 1-3, 5-13 & 15-17 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