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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of claims 1, 23, 32 are supported by the specification. The new claims 34-42 are supported by the specification.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 2/13/2026. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 2022/0208410).
Claim 1-4, 8: Li teaches a solid electrolyte comprising a polymer and a ceramic [00172-00177]. The polymer can be polyvinyl chloride, the ceramic can be Li6PS5Cl. The electrolyte has an ionic conductivity of greater than 1 mS cm-1 (abstract).
Li does not expressly name a single embodiment having the claimed composition. However, each of the components of the composition is described in the reference. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention to have made any of the compositions suggested by the reference, including the claimed composition, thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Claims 5-7: Li does not teach the content of polymer and ceramic in the electrolyte.
However, the content of the ceramic is a result effective variable where insufficient amount may result in poor mechanical modulus and poor lithium dendrite suppression ability, whereas excessive amounts lead to brittleness and poor processability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the amount of the ceramic through routine experimentation to balance between those properties.Case law holds that "discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art." In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 9, 11: Li is silent with respect to the elongation at break value of the composition. However, the teachings from Li have rendered obvious the instantly claimed ingredients and amounts thereof. Therefore, it is reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed physical properties to naturally arise.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23, 32, 34-42 are allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 WENWEN CAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3590. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on (571)272-1130. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WENWEN CAI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763