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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Note new Examiner due to a reassignment after applicant’s election.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on November 11,2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TW 200946335 A1 (Nov. 16, 2009) with Machine translation.
Machine translated TW teaches a transparent multilayer sheet having a surface layer comprising a conductive thermoplastic polyurethane.
TW teaches a layer/sheet obtained from a composition comprising PEG (Mw of1500), MDI (methylene dipheny isocyanate) or HDI (hexamethylene isocyanate), 1,4-butanediol and LiN(SO2C2F5)2 in example 4 of table. 1 (page 16).
Machine translated TW teaches that the LiN(SO2C2F5)2 is an electrostatic discharge improver in a lower section of page 4 in which lithium sulfide (Li2S) is further taught. The lithium sulfide (Li2S) would meet the recited sulfide of claim 1 absent further limitation. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention further to utilize the lithium sulfide (Li2S) in lieu of the LiN(SO2C2F5)2 in the example 4 of table 1. See In re Mills, 477 F.2d 649, 176 USPQ 196 (CCPA), In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976): Reference must be considered for all that it discloses and must not be limited to preferred embodiments or working examples. MPEP 2123.
The layer/sheet taught by TW would meet the recited solid electrolyte layer of claim 1 inherently since TW teaches utilization of the same components.
Machine translated TW teaches that a sheet of the example 4 was obtained by a method used for a comparative example 1 in lines 8-11 from bottom of page 6. Machine translated TW teaches utilization of ZSK58 twin-screw extruder at 190-220oC for the comparative example 1. Thus, utilization of the ZSK58 twin-screw extruder for the example 4 would be anticipation.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention further to utilize the lithium sulfide (Li2S) in lieu of the LiN(SO2C2F5)2 in the example 4 of table 1 and the ZSK58 twin-screw extruder since TW teaches and equates the (Li2S) and LiN(SO2C2F5)2 absent showing otherwise.
Regarding claim 2, Machine translated TW teaches utilization of the ZSK58 twin-screw extruder for the example 4 blending all components.
Regarding claim 4, the recited “less than 5 wt.%” includes 0 wt.%.
Regarding claim 5, Machine translated TW teaches diol-modified polyethylene terephthalate (PET G) in lines 15-16 of page 5.
Regarding claim 6, the PEG (Mw of 1500) used by TW would meet claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, the MDI (methylene dipheny isocyanate) or HDI (hexamethylene isocyanate) used by TW would meet claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, Machine translated TW teaches the surface layer has a thickness of 0.05-3 mm (i.e., 50 µm-3000 µm) in line 26 of page 5, and thus the recited thickness of 50 µm-100 µm) would have been obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In re Woodruff, 919F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TW 550597 B (Sep. 1, 2003) with in view of WO 2008/070059 A2 (June 12, 2008) and TW 200946335 A1 (Nov. 16, 2009) with Machine translation.
Machine translated TW 550597 B teaches an electroconductive layer comprising a solid conductor (see page 5) obtained from a paste of a polymer or its precursors in abstract. Machine translated TW 550597 B teaches various polymers including polyurethane in line 17 from bottom of page 4. The precursors (i.e. reactants) of the polyurethane would be diisocyanate and a diol inherently. Machine translated TW 550597 B teaches utilization of a solvent and a plasticizer at a lower section of page 4 and extrusion application in lines 9-10 from bottom of page 8.
The instant invention further recites utilization a sulfide as a conductor and twin-screw extruder over TW 550597 B.
WO teaches a solid electrolyte layer comprising various ionic electrolyte salts including those comprising S in lines 5-14 of page 24.
TW 200946335 A1 (Nov. 16, 2009) with Machine translation teaches utilization of a twin-screw extruder (ZSK58 twin-screw extruder) at 190-220oC for the comparative example 1 and example 4.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to utilize the ionic electrolyte salts comprising S taught by WO TW 550597 B since both teach conductive compositions and further to utilize the precursors (reactants: diisocyanate and a polyol) of the polyurethane of WO with the twin-screw extruder (ZSK58 twin-screw extruder) taught by TW 200946335 A1 since WO teaches utilization of precursors for obtaining polymers including the polyurethane and the extrusion process absent showing otherwise.
Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious, see Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). MPEP 2144.07.
The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). MPEP 2141.
Regarding claim 2, Machine translated TW teaches utilization of the ZSK58 twin-screw extruder for the example 4 blending all components.
Regarding claim 4, the recited “less than 5 wt.%” includes 0 wt.%. Further, TW 550597 B teaches utilization of a solvent at a lower section of page 4.
Regarding claim 5, Machine translated TW 200946335 A1 teaches diol-modified polyethylene terephthalate (PET G) in lines 15-16 of page 5.
Regarding claim 6, the PEG (Mw of 1500) used by TW 200946335 A1 would meet claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Machine translated TW 200946335 A1 teaches the MDI (methylene dipheny isocyanate) or HDI (hexamethylene isocyanate) used by TW would meet claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, Machine translated TW teaches the surface layer has a thickness of 0.05-3 mm (i.e., 50 µm-3000 µm) in line 26 of page 5, and thus the recited thickness of 50 µm-100 µm) would have been obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In re Woodruff, 919F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, TW 550597 B teaches an additional layer of a positive electrode (lithium cobalt oxide) in lines 4-5 oaf page 4 and thus further extrusion of an electroconductive layer comprising a solid conductor and polyurethane taught by TW 550597 B on the positive electrode would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 12, Machine translated TW 550597 B teaches utilization of a solvent and a plasticizer at a lower section of page 4 6 and thus further feeding of the solvent and plasticizer would have been obvious.
CLAIM OBJECTION
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims since none of the prior art of record teach the instant separate feedings (i.e., sequential feeding) of components into the extruder.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE H YOON whose telephone number is (571)272-1128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571)270-7733. 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.
/TAE H YOON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762