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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed December 17, 2025.
The following rejections are overcome:
Claims 2 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 & 5-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng at al. CN 110649315 A.
Claim(s) 3 & 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng at al. CN 110649315 A in view of Thomas-Alyea et al. US, Pub. 2019/0273258.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10 are rejected as follows:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 & 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng at al. CN 110649315 A in view of HE et al. WO-2020050896-A1.
With respect to claim 1, Zeng teaches a composite polymer solid electrolyte comprising: polyethylene oxide (PEO; Example 4, paragraph 2); a ceramic powder (nano inorganic substance; Example 4, paragraph 2; which is silicon dioxide; Example 4, paragraph 4 ); and an inorganic fiber scaffold (glass fibre mesh substrate; Example 4, paragraph 2). With respect to claim 2, the lithium salt comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of LiPF6, LiTFSI, LiClO4, LiBF4, LiAsF6, LiCF3SO3, Li(CF3SO2)2N, LiBph4, and Li(CF3SO2)3C (lithium hexafluorophosphate; LiPF6; Example 4, paragraph 4). With respect to claim 6, the inorganic fiber scaffold comprises a glass fiber (glass fibre mesh substrate; Example 4, paragraph 2). With respect to claim 8, a method of preparing a composite polymer solid electrolyte, comprising: mixing polyethylene oxide (PEO; plasticizer of ethylene carbonate and lithium salt; Example 4, paragraph 2 & 4); preparing a polymer separator through a high-temperature roll press after mixing a ceramic power into the liquid mixture (nano inorganic substance; Example 4, paragraph 2; which is silicon dioxide; Example 4, paragraph 4; then printer rolled at 90 degrees to form layer 2); and bonding the polymer separator with an inorganic fiber scaffold through the high- temperature roll press (glass and polymer layers heat rolled at 70 degrees; Example 4, paragraph 3).
Although Zeng teaches plasticizer of ethylene carbonate and lithium salt (Example 4, paragraph 2 & 4), the reference does not explicitly teach a liquid electrolyte that contains a lithium salt or a sodium salt; wherein the sodium salt comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of NaPF6, NaSbF6, NaPF4, NaCF3SO3, NaClO4, NaN(SO2CF3)2 and NaFSI (claims 1 & 8); wherein the liquid electrolyte comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of phosphoric acid-based solvents and ether-based solvents, and wherein the phosphoric acid-based solvents include triethyl phosphate (TEP) and trimethyl phosphate (TMP), and the ether-based solvents include triethylene glycol dimethyl ether (TEGDME), polyethyleneglycol dimethyl ether (PEGDME) and diethyleneglycol dimethyl ether (DEGDME) (claims 1 & 8); the glass fiber has a thickness of 10 to 30 µm, and a density of 20 to 30 g/L (claim 7); the high-temperature roll press is performed at a temperature ranging from 60 to 150°C (claim 9); the composite polymer solid electrolyte is prepared to have a thickness of 50 to 100 µm (claim 10).
He teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: a liquid electrolyte that contains a lithium salt or a sodium salt; wherein the sodium salt comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of NaPF6, NaSbF6, NaPF4, NaCF3SO3, NaClO4, NaN(SO2CF3)2 and NaFSI (lithium secondary cell may be an organic electrolyte, ionic liquid electrolyte, gel polymer electrolyte, solid-state electrolyte (e.g. polymer solid electrolyte or inorganic solid electrolyte), quasi-solid electrolyte or a combination thereof. The electrolyte typically contains an alkali metal salt (lithium salt, sodium salt, and/or potassium salt) dissolved in a solvent; See HE at DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS, paragraph 67; electrolytic salts to be incorporated into a non-aqueous electrolyte may be selected from a lithium salt such as lithium perchlorate (LiClO4), lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6), lithium borofluoride (LiBF4), lithium hexafluoroarsenide (LiAsF6), lithium trifluoro- methanesulfonate (LiCF3SO3); See HE at DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS, paragraph 70; sodium hexafluorophosphate (NaPF.sub.6), , sodium perchlorate (NaClO4), sodium trifluoro-methanesulfonate (NaCF3SO3), sodium trifluoromethanesulfonimide (NaTFSI); See HE at DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS, paragraph 70; claims 1 & 8); wherein the liquid electrolyte comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of phosphoric acid-based solvents and ether-based solvents, and wherein the phosphoric acid-based solvents include triethyl phosphate (TEP) and trimethyl phosphate (TMP), and the ether-based solvents include triethylene glycol dimethyl ether (TEGDME), polyethyleneglycol dimethyl ether (PEGDME) and diethyleneglycol dimethyl ether (DEGDME) (tetraethylene glycol dimethylether (TEGDME), poly(ethylene glycol) dimethyl ether(PEGDME); See HE at DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS, paragraphs 68-69; claims 1 & 8). Furthermore, the electrolyte for a lithium secondary cell may be an organic electrolyte, ionic liquid electrolyte, gel polymer electrolyte, solid-state electrolyte (e.g. polymer solid electrolyte or inorganic solid electrolyte), quasi-solid electrolyte or a combination thereof. See HE at DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS, paragraph 67.
Zeng and HE are analogous art from the same field of endeavor, namely fabricating secondary lithium cells.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the liquid electrolyte containing a lithium salt or a sodium salt; wherein the sodium salt comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of NaPF6, NaSbF6, NaPF4, NaCF3SO3, NaClO4, NaN(SO2CF3)2 and NaFSI that contains a lithium salt or a sodium salt (claims 1 & 8); as taught by He in the solid electrolyte of Zeng, in order to increase ion conductivity between opposing electrodes. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also, Zeng teaches a plasticizer of ethylene carbonate and a lithium salt (Example 4, paragraph 2 & 4). Examiners note: ethylene carbonate is a well-known electrolyte solvent commonly paired with lithium salts to form conventional electrolytes. Therefore, regarding the lithium salt the components added are identical to the instant claims. Lastly, HE teaches the equivalency or electrolyte physical states and lithium and sodium salts in lithium secondary cells. See DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS, paragraph 67. Specifically, the electrolyte for a lithium secondary cell may be an organic electrolyte, ionic liquid electrolyte, gel polymer electrolyte, solid-state electrolyte (e.g. polymer solid electrolyte or inorganic solid electrolyte), quasi-solid electrolyte or a combination thereof. See DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS, paragraph 67. The electrolyte typically contains an alkali metal salt (lithium salt, sodium salt, and/or potassium salt) dissolved in a solvent. See DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS, paragraph 67. Therefore, because these salts were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute lithium for sodium. See In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). MPEP 2144.06.
With respect to the phosphoric acid-based solvents include triethyl phosphate (TEP) and trimethyl phosphate (TMP), and the ether-based solvents include triethylene glycol dimethyl ether (TEGDME), polyethyleneglycol dimethyl ether (PEGDME) and diethyleneglycol dimethyl ether (DEGDME) (claims 1 & 8); it would have been obvious to employ the tetraethylene glycol dimethylether (TEGDME), poly(ethylene glycol) dimethyl ether(PEGDME solvents of HE, in the solid electrolyte of Zeng, in order to increase ion conductivity between opposing electrodes. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
With respect to claim 7, the glass fiber has a thickness of 10 to 30 µm, and a density of 20 to 30 g/L; it would have been obvious in the composite polymer solid electrolyte of Zeng in view of HE, in order to improve structural integrity of the electrolyte. Also, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of the electrolyte component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to claim 9, the high-temperature roll press is performed at a temperature ranging from 60 to 150°C; it would have been obvious in the composite polymer solid electrolyte of Zeng in view of HE, in order to improve structural integrity of the electrolyte. Zeng teaches a glass and polymer layers heat rolled at 70 degrees. See Example 4, paragraph 3. Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to claim 10, the composite polymer solid electrolyte is prepared to have a thickness of 50 to 100 µm; it would have been obvious in the composite polymer solid electrolyte of Zeng in view of HE, in order to improve structural integrity of the electrolyte. Also, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of the electrolyte component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng at al. CN 110649315 A in view of in view of HE et al. WO-2020050896-A1, and further in view of Thomas-Alyea et al. US, Pub. 2019/0273258.
Zeng in view of HE teach a composite polymer solid electrolyte comprising: polyethylene oxide (PEO; Example 4, paragraph 2); a ceramic powder (nano inorganic substance; Example 4, paragraph 2; which is silicon dioxide; Example 4, paragraph 4 ); and an inorganic fiber scaffold (glass fibre mesh substrate; Example 4, paragraph 2), as described in the rejection recited herein above.
Zeng does not teach: the ceramic powder comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of Na3PS4, Na3SbS4, NASICON, and β-A12O3 (claim 4).
Thomas-Alyea teaches that it is well known in the art to employ composite polymer solid electrolyte (solid electrolyte polymer layer and glass layer; [0024] & [0029]) with the ceramic powder comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of Na3PS4, Na3SbS4, NASICON, and β-A12O3 (NASICON; [0029]; claim 4).
Zeng, HE and Thomas-Alyea are analogous art from the same field of endeavor, namely fabricating composite polymer solid electrolytes,
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the sodium salt comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of NaAsF6 of Thomas-Alyea, in the composite polymer solid electrolyte of Zeng in view of HE, as the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts that the claims are not obvious over Zeng at al. CN 110649315 A, because the reference is silent to sodium salt, wherein the sodium salt comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of NaPF6, NaSbF6, NaPF4, NaCF3SO3, NaClO4, NaN(SO2CF3)2 and NaFSI. This argument is not persuasive, as the sodium salt is an alternative salt to lithium salt. Only one of said salts is required. However, in the interest of compacting prosecution, the limitation is newly rejection.
Applicant asserts that the claims are not obvious over Zeng at al. CN 110649315 A, because the reference is silent to the liquid electrolyte comprising at least one selected from a group consisting of phosphoric acid-based solvents and ether-based solvents, and wherein the phosphoric acid-based solvents include triethyl phosphate (TEP) and trimethyl phosphate (TMP), and the ether-based solvents include triethylene glycol dimethyl ether (TEGDME), polyethyleneglycol dimethyl ether (PEGDME) and diethyleneglycol dimethyl ether (DEGDME). This argument is persuasive and all previously pending rejections are overcome.
Applicant asserts that Thomas-Alyea et al. US, Pub. 2019/0273258.only discloses "NaAsF6" as an example of a sodium salt, and the specific solvents used in the electrolyte composition are mainly organic solvents, such as methanol, ethanol, propanol, butanol, toluene, xylene, acetone, cyclohexanone, trichloroethylene, and combinations thereof. This argument is not persuasive, as Thomas-Alyea was relied on for NASICON ceramic powder teachings.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE M WILLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1309. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Tiffany Legette, may be reached at 571-270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Monique M Wills/
Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights