DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s amendment filed 6 March 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 3, 7, 13, 15, and 20 have been amended, claims 2, 8, 14, and 17 have been canceled, new claim 21 has been introduced, and claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, 15-16, 18-21 remain pending.
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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (WO 2020/180030 A1; using US 2022/0140383, listed in the IDS filed 11 July 2023, for the English translation and citations).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a free-standing separating layer (see Fig. 2) for an electrochemical cell, the free-standing separating layer comprising:
greater than or equal to about 50 wt. % to less than or equal to about 99.5 wt. % of a gel membrane (the amount of polymer may be 10 wt% to 40 wt%, which is about 50 wt. %; see [0023] and [0028]) comprising greater than or equal to about 0.1 wt. % to less than or equal to about 50 wt. % of a polymer host (10 wt% to 40 wt %, see [0023] and [0028]) and greater than or equal to about 50 wt. % to less than or equal to about 99.5 wt. % of a liquid electrolyte (50 wt % to 300 wt %, see [0025] and [0029]); and
greater than or equal to about 0.5 wt. % to less than or equal to about 50 wt. % of an integrated structural component (the amount of the ion conductive ceramic may be 60 wt% to 90 wt %, which is about 50 wt. %, see [0022] and [0027]) disposed within the gel membrane, the integrated structural component selected from the group consisting of: a plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles (ion conductive ceramic, see [0022]), a nonwoven material, and combinations thereof.
Applicant is reminded that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Furthermore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches wherein the plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles are selected from the group consisting of: Li7La3Zr2O12 (see [0022]), Li1+xAlxGe2-x(PO4)3 (where 0 ≤ x ≤ 2) (LAGP) (see [0022]).
Regarding claim 4-6, limitations drawn to the nonwoven material do not limit the free-standing separating layer that only has a plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles, as is the case in Kim.
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches wherein an average thickness of the free-standing separating layer is greater than or equal to about 5 micrometers to less than or equal to about 100 micrometers (20 to 100 µm, see claim 20).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches wherein the polymer host is selected from the group consisting of: polyacrylonitrile (PAN), poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO), poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) (PVdF-HFP), poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), and combinations thereof (see [0023]).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches wherein the liquid electrolyte comprises:
a lithium salt selected from the group consisting of: lithium hexafluoroarsenate, lithium hexafluorophosphate, lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI), lithium perchlorate, lithium tetrafluoroborate (LiBF.sub.4), lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI), lithium bis(oxalate)borate, and combinations thereof (see [0026]); and
a solvent selected from the group consisting of: ethylene carbonate (EC) (see [0017]-[0019], [0025], and [0041]-[0043]).
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions, the electrochemical cell comprising:
a positive electrode comprising a positive electroactive material (a LiFePO4 positive electrode, see [0041]);
a negative electrode comprising a negative electroactive material (a lithium metal negative electrode, see [0041]); and
a free-standing separating layer (see Fig. 2) disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, wherein the free-standing separating layer comprises:
greater than or equal to about 50 wt. % to less than or equal to about 99.5 wt. % of a gel membrane (the amount of polymer may be 10 wt% to 40 wt%, which is about 50 wt. %; see [0023] and [0028]) comprising greater than or equal to about 0.1 wt. % to less than or equal to about 50 wt. % of a polymer host (10 wt% to 40 wt %, see [0023] and [0028]) and greater than or equal to about 50 wt. % to less than or equal to about 99.5 wt. % of a liquid electrolyte (50 wt % to 300 wt %, see [0025] and [0029]); and
greater than or equal to about 0.5 wt. % to less than or equal to about 50 wt. % of an integrated structural component (the amount of the ion conductive ceramic may be 60 wt% to 90 wt %, which is about 50 wt. %; see [0022] and [0027]) disposed within the gel membrane, the integrated structural component selected from the group consisting of: a plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles (ion conductive ceramic, see [0022]), a nonwoven material, and combinations thereof.
Applicant is reminded that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Furthermore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches wherein the plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles are selected from the group consisting of: Li7La3Zr2O12 (see [0022]), Li1+xAlxGe2-x(PO4)3 (where 0 ≤ x ≤ 2) (LAGP) (see [0022]).
Regarding claim 16, limitations drawn to the nonwoven material do not limit the free-standing separating layer that only has a plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles, as is the case in Kim.
Regarding claim 20, Kim teaches an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions, the electrochemical cell comprising:
a positive electrode comprising a positive electroactive material (a LiFePO4 positive electrode, see [0041]);
a negative electrode comprising a negative electroactive material (a lithium metal negative electrode, see [0041]); and
a free-standing separating layer disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, wherein the free-standing separating layer comprises:
greater than or equal to about 50 wt. % to less than or equal to about 99.5 wt. % of a gel membrane (the amount of polymer may be 10 wt% to 40 wt%, which is about 50 wt. %; see [0028]) comprising greater than or equal to about 0.1 wt. % to less than or equal to about 50 wt. % of a polymer host (10 wt% to 40 wt %, see [0028]) and greater than or equal to about 50 wt. % to less than or equal to about 99.5 wt. % of a liquid electrolyte (50 wt % to 300 wt %, see [0029]), and
greater than or equal to about 0.5 wt. % to less than or equal to about 50 wt. % of an integrated structural component disposed within the gel membrane (see [0022] and [0027] – Kim teaches a low end of 60 wt%, which is about 50 wt. %), the integrated structural component selected from the group consisting of: a plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles (ion conductive ceramic, see [0022]), a nonwoven material stable at temperatures greater than or equal to about 100° C. to less than or equal to about 500° C., and combinations thereof.
Applicant is reminded that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Furthermore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 21, Kim teaches wherein the plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles are selected from the group consisting of: Li3.25Ge0.25P0.75S4 (Thio-LISICON) (see [0022]).
Claim(s) 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2022/0311050; hereinafter “Yamazaki”).
Regarding claims 11 and 18, Kim is silent to wherein the liquid electrolyte comprises greater than 0 M to less than or equal to about 2 M of a first lithium salt and greater than 0 M to less than or equal to about 2 M of a second lithium salt, wherein the first and second lithium salts are independently selected from the group consisting of: lithium hexafluoroarsenate, lithium hexafluorophosphate, lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI), lithium perchlorate, lithium tetrafluoroborate (LiBF.sub.4), lithium cyclo-difluoromethane-1,1-bis(sulfonyl)imide, lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI), lithium bis(perfluoroethanesulfonyl), lithium bis(oxalate)borate, lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate, lithium bis(fluoromalonato)borate, and combinations thereof.
Yamazaki teaches wherein a liquid electrolyte comprises greater than 0 M to less than or equal to about 2 M of a first lithium salt and greater than 0 M to less than or equal to about 2 M of a second lithium salt (see [0267]). Furthermore, if the total mole concentration of lithium is excessively low, the electric conductivity of the electrolytic solution may be insufficient. On the other hand, if the total mole concentration thereof is excessively high, the electric conductivity may decrease due to increase in the viscosity, and the battery performance may deteriorate, see [0268]. Thus, the salt concentration is a result effective variable) wherein the first and second lithium salts are independently selected from the group consisting of: lithium hexafluoroarsenate, lithium hexafluorophosphate (see [0255]-[0264]), lithium perchlorate (see [0255]-[0264]), lithium tetrafluoroborate (LiBF4) (see [0255]-[0264]). Yamazaki teaches that this combination of salts has an effect of improving the high-temperature storage characteristics, load characteristics, and cycle characteristics (see [0264]).
In view of Yamazaki’s teachings, it would have been obvious to modify the layer of Kim to include wherein the first and second lithium salts are independently selected from the group consisting of: lithium hexafluoroarsenate, lithium hexafluorophosphate, lithium perchlorate, and lithium tetrafluoroborate, as taught by Yamazaki, because this combination of salts have an effect of improving the high-temperature storage characteristics, load characteristics, and cycle characteristics (see [0264]). Furthermore, with regard to the concentrations of the first and second salts (wherein a liquid electrolyte comprises greater than 0 M to less than or equal to about 2 M of a first lithium salt and greater than 0 M to less than or equal to about 2 M of a second lithium salt), 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 MPEP §2144.05(II).
Claim(s) 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Bowden et al. (US 2003/0162099; hereinafter “Bowden”).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, Kim is silent to wherein the liquid electrolyte comprises a first solvent and a second solvent, wherein a mass ratio of the first solvent to the second solvent is (10-x):x (where 0.5≤x≤9.5) and the first and second solvents are independently selected from the group consisting of: ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), glycerol carbonate, vinylene carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate, 1,2-butylene carbonate, γ-butyrolactone (GBL), δ-valerolactone, as succinonitrile, glutaronitrile, adiponitrile, tetramethylene sulfone, ethyl methyl sulfone, triethylene glycol dimethylether (triglyme, G3), tetraethylene glycol dimethylether (tetraglyme, G4), 1,3-dimethyoxy propane, 1,4-dioxane, vinyl sulfone, phenyl sulfone, 4-fluorophenyl sulfone, benzyl sulfone, triethyl phosphate, trimethyl phosphate, ionic liquids comprising a cation selected from the group consisting of: as 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium ([Emim]+), 1-propyl-1-methylpiperidinium ([PP13]+), 1-butyl-1-methylpiperidinium ([PP14]+), 1-methyl-1-ethylpyrrolidinium ([Pyr12]+), 1-propyl-1-methylpyrrolidinium ([Pyr13]+), 1-butyl-1-methylpyrrolidinium ([Pyr14]+), and combinations thereof and anions selected from the group consisting of: bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (TFSI), bis(fluorosulfonyl imide (FSI), and combinations thereof, and combinations thereof.
Bowden teaches an electrolyte that can comprise a mixture of solvents, including propylene carbonate (PC) and ethylene carbonate (EC) (see [0019]). Bowden teaches that the concentration of the first solvent can be equal to 100% minus the concentration of the second solvent (see [0021] – Bowden is discussing this aspect in view of the example solvents chosen in [0019], but one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would recognize that any of the solvents as taught by Bowden would be applicable). The solvents can be selected to provide a mixture having a combination of physical and chemical properties (see [0019]).
In view of Bowden’s teachings, it would have been obvious to modify the layer of Kim to include wherein the liquid electrolyte comprises a first solvent and a second solvent, wherein a mass ratio of the first solvent to the second solvent is (10-x):x (where 0.5≤x≤9.5) and the first and second solvents are independently selected from the group consisting of: ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), as taught by Bowden, because the solvents can be selected to provide a mixture of having a combination of physical and chemical properties. 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 MPEP §2144.05(II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 12-15 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Kim is silent with regard to a free-standing separating layer including (a) greater than or equal to about 50 wt. % to less than or equal to about 99.5 wt. % of a gel membrane that includes (i) greater than or equal to about 0.1 wt. % to less than or equal to about 50 wt.% of a polymer host and (ii) greater than or equal to about 50 wt. % to less than or equal to about 99.5 wt.% of a liquid electrolyte and (b) greater than or equal to about 0.5 wt. % to less than or equal to about 50 wt.% of an integrated structural component disposed within the gel membrane. Applicant argues that Kim’s ranges for the alleged ion conductive ceramic are relative to a mixture of the ion conductive ceramic and polymer and not the free-standing layer, the ranges for the polymer are relative to a mixture of the ion conductive ceramic and the polymer and not the free-standing separating layer, and Kim’s ranges for the liquid electrolyte are relative to the mixture of the ion conductive ceramic and the polymer and not relative to the polymer.
The Examiner finds these arguments moot as they are not commensurate with the scope of the current claim language. The current claim language does not appear to limit the claimed ranges to be relative to the free-standing layer.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458 . 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.
/S.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 10 June 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights