DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on April 8, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities.
Lines 1 and 10 of the abstract include the text: “solid oxidesolid oxide electrolyte membrane”. The text should be edited to read: “solid oxide electrolyte membrane”.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities. The specification repeatedly uses the term “oxide solid oxide electrolyte membrane”. This appears to be a typographical error and the intended term is understood to be “solid oxide electrolyte membrane”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected 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 3 recites the limitation "the defoaming tank" on lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 is rejected 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 14 recites the limitation "the coating method" on line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 introduces “a coating process” (last line of claim 1).
The limitation of claim 14 is interpreted to have been intended to read: “the coating process”.
Claim 16 is rejected 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 16 recites the limitation "the oxide slurry" on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 is rejected 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 20 recites the limitation "in the fifth mixed slurry, a mass ratio of the reagent A, the reagent B and the reagent C is 1 : (0.5-0.6) : (0.15-0.2)" on lines 1-2.
Claim 20 depends on claim 1.
Claim 1 defines reagent C as being formed by mixing reagent B with a protective agent. As such, reagent C includes reagent B. Given this, the amount of reagent C is understood to be greater than the amount of reagent B. However, the claimed ratio shows that reagent C is less than reagent B.
Applicant is invited to clarify the intended composition.
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, 4, 7, 8 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0200420, hereinafter Holme in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0257658, hereinafter Wachsman and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0373612, hereinafter Yamada.
Regarding claim 1, Holme teaches a method of making a solid oxide electrolyte film (“membrane”).
The method includes a step of providing and mixing a garnet powder (“oxide powder”), a dispersant and a second solvent to form a “second mixed slurry”. The “second mixed slurry” is milled until achieving a particle size in the range 300 nm – 400 nm to obtain “reagent B” (paragraph [0526]). The milling is a “nano-micronization treating”. This step corresponds to instantly claimed step S2.
The method further includes a step of adding a dispersant to a first amount of “reagent B” to form a “third mixed slurry” (paragraph [0527]). A dispersant is an agent, which serves to prevent particle agglomeration in slurries and in this way protects the uniformity of the slurry. A dispersant can thus be described as a “protective agent”. The “third mixed slurry” is further milled and is thus understood to be “homogenized” to obtain “reagent C”. This step corresponds to the instantly claimed step S3.
The method further teaches adding a binder to “reagent C” to form a “fourth mixed slurry”. The “fourth mixed slurry” is further milled and is thus understood to be “homogenized” (paragraph [0527]). This step corresponds to the first part of instantly claimed step S4.
Holme teaches that the garnet powder (“oxide powder”) is Li7La3Zr2O12 (LLZO) and the binder may be PVDF (“high molecular polymer”) (paragraphs [0148, 0297, 0524]). It is therefore expected that the interaction between LLZO and PVDF would result in a lithium fluorination reaction.
The method further includes a step of producing the solid oxide electrolyte film (“membrane”) by a coating process (paragraph [0528]). This step corresponds to instantly claimed step S5.
Holme fails to: 1) specify that the PVDF binder is mixed with a first solvent to form a “first mixed slurry”; and 2) teach adding a second amount of “reagent B” to the “fourth mixed slurry” to form a “fifth mixed slurry”.
Regarding 1), it is well-known in the art to mix binder into a solvent prior to adding it into a solid electrolyte slurry. See, e.g. Wachsman, who teaches forming a slurry comprising a ceramic powder such as LLZO, dispersant and solvent and subsequently adding to the slurry a binder mixed within a solvent (paragraphs [0276, 0282]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mix Holme’s PVDF binder in a first solvent to form the “first mixed slurry” for the purpose of assisting the process of mixing the binder with “reagent C”.
Regarding 2), the successive addition of reagents is a common practice in the art – see e.g., Yamada who teaches forming a solid electrolyte layer. Yamada forms a slurry comprising solid electrolyte powder, solvent and various additives. Yamada teaches successive, repeating steps of adding powder, solvent and/or additives (paragraphs [0064, 0065, 0073-0075]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add additional repeated steps including adding a second amount of reagent B to form a “fifth mixed slurry” for the purpose of optimizing the composition and/or assisting in the mixing and homogenization of the slurry.
Regarding claim 4, Holme teaches that the dispersant of step S2 may be polyvinyl butyral (PVB) or polyvinylpyridine (PVP) (paragraph [0297]) – both “high molecular polymers”.
Regarding claim 6, Holme teaches PVDF as the “high molecular polymer” of instantly claimed step S1 (paragraph [0297]).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Holme teaches LLZO (paragraphs [0148, 0524]).
Regarding claim 14, Holme teaches coating via a doctor blade method – this is a “flat coating” method.
Regarding claim 15, Holme teaches that the nano-micronization is performed through wet milling (“wet grinding”) (paragraph [0526]).
Regarding claim 16, Holme teaches that in step S2, the weight of dispersant is 30 g and the weight of the garnet powder (“oxide powder”) is 300 g (paragraph [0526]). Therefore, a weight percentage of the dispersant is 10% relative to the weight of the garnet powder (“oxide powder”).
Regarding claim 17, Holme teaches that the first amount of “reagent B” is 35 g. This represent less than 50% of the total amount of “reagent B” (paragraphs [0526, 0527]).
Regarding claim 18, Holme teaches adding 2.65 g dispersant (“protective agent”) to 35 g (“first amount”) of “reagent B” (paragraph [0527]). Thus, a weight percentage of the dispersant (“protective agent”) is approximately 8% relative to the weight of the first amount of “reagent B”.
Regarding claim 19, Holme teaches in a specific example adding 2.65 g dispersant (“protective agent”) to 35 g (“first amount”) of “reagent B” (paragraph [0527]). This ratio is 13.2:1. Holme also teaches that the surfactant is less than 50% by weight relative to the slurry (paragraph [0297]). Therefore, there is an overlapping range of the claimed ratio.
Holme's optimum range overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 15:1 to 25:1. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0200420, hereinafter Holme in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0257658, hereinafter Wachsman and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0373612, hereinafter Yamada as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0231181, hereinafter Zhamu.
Regarding claim 2, Holme as modified by Wachsman teaches uniformly mixing PVDF as a binder and a first solvent in a flowable slurry.
Holme as modified by Wachsman fails to teach that the mixture is colorless and translucent.
Zhamu teaches a solid electrolyte slurry comprising LLZO powder added to a PVDF polymer mixed within the solvent dimethylacetamide (DMAC) (paragraphs [0183, 0202]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use DMAC as the first solvent in the process of Holme as modified by Wachsman’s as DMAC is a solvent suitable for use with both PVDF and LLZO powder to form a slurry.
Given that the materials in the combination of Holme, Wachsman and Zhamu are the same as instantly disclosed – PVDF and DMAC – it is expected that the mixture would similarly be colorless and translucent.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0200420, hereinafter Holme in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0257658, hereinafter Wachsman and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0373612, hereinafter Yamada as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0202935, hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 3, Holme as modified by Wachsman teaches uniformly mixing PVDF as a binder and a first solvent.
Holme as modified by Wachsman fails to specify the order of component addition or the vessel in which the mixture is performed.
It is customary in the art to add the binder into the solvent – see, e.g. Wang who teaches adding PVDF binder to a solvent (paragraph [0151]). This operation requires that the solvent be present in a vessel first so that the PVDF binder can be added to the solvent. It is further customary to perform such mixtures in vessels that can be defoamed – see, Wang (paragraph [0151]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to first add the solvent to a vessel that can be defoamed and then add the binder to the solvent for the purpose of properly mixing the two together.
Claims 5, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0200420, hereinafter Holme in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0257658, hereinafter Wachsman and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0373612, hereinafter Yamada as applied to claims 4 and 1 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0083614, hereinafter Van Berkel.
Regarding claim 5, Holme teaches “high molecular polymers” such as polyvinyl butyral (PVB) or polyvinylpyridine (PVP) as the dispersant of step S2 (paragraph [0297])
Holme fails to teach one of the instantly claimed compounds.
Van Berkel teaches a slurry comprising a solid electrolyte powder such as LLZO, a binder and a solvent used to form a solid electrolyte layer (paragraphs [0003, 0007-0011, 0013]). Van Berkel teaches various candidate dispersants including the ones taught by Holme, but further teaches poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO) and polymethacrylates (paragraphs [0078]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select PEO or PMMA as the dispersant in step S2 without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success as they are art recognized equivalents used for the same purpose.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Holme teaches adding a dispersant (“protective agent”) in step S3 (paragraph [0527]).
Holme fails to teach that the dispersant (“protective agent”) is a weak acid.
Van Berkel teaches a slurry comprising a solid electrolyte powder such as LLZO, a binder and a solvent used to form a solid electrolyte layer (paragraphs [0003, 0007-0011, 0013]). Van Berkel teaches various candidate dispersants including the ones taught by Holme, but further fatty acids (paragraphs [0078]). A fatty acid is a weak acid capable of serving as an inhibitor.
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a fatty acid as the dispersant (“protective agent”) in step S2 without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success as it is an art recognized equivalent used for the same purpose.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0200420, hereinafter Holme in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0257658, hereinafter Wachsman and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0373612, hereinafter Yamada as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0231181, hereinafter Zhamu and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0083614, hereinafter Van Berkel.
Regarding claim 9, Holme teaches PVDF as the “high molecular polymer” of instantly claimed step S1 (paragraph [0297]).
Holme fails to teach that: 1) the first solvent and the second solvent are DMAC; and 2) the dispersant is PMMA.
Regarding 1), Zhamu teaches a solid electrolyte slurry comprising LLZO powder added to a PVDF polymer mixed within the solvent dimethylacetamide (DMAC) (paragraphs [0183, 0202]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use DMAC as the first and second solvent in Wachsman’s process as DMAC is a solvent suitable for use with both PVDF and LLZO powder to form a slurry.
Regarding 2), Van Berkel teaches a slurry comprising a solid electrolyte powder such as LLZO, a binder and an aprotic solvent used to form a solid electrolyte layer (paragraphs [0003, 0007-0011, 0013]). Van Berkel teaches various candidate dispersants including the ones taught by Holme, but further teaches polymethacrylates (paragraphs [0078]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select PMMA as the dispersant in step S2 with the aprotic solvent DMAC without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success as it is an art recognized equivalent used for the same purpose.
Claim 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0200420, hereinafter Holme in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0257658, hereinafter Wachsman and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0373612, hereinafter Yamada as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0295049, hereinafter Badding.
Regarding claims 10-13, Holme teaches a slurry comprising LLZO powder and a solvent.
Holme fails to teach adding a protective agent that is a mixture of acetic acid and phosphoric acid.
Badding teaches adding acetic acid and phosphoric acid to a slurry of LLZO powder for the purpose of passivating the surface of the LLZO powder (paragraph [0064]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a protective agent that is a mixture of acetic acid and phosphoric acid for the purpose of passivating the surface of the LLZO powder.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US PG Pub 2023/0096153.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 5.00 PM.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
LILIA V. NEDIALKOVA
Examiner
Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights