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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS)’s submitted on 05/09/2024 and 12/02/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 13 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.
The examples of the solid electrolyte provided in applicant’s disclosure are inconsistent with Formula 1 as recited in Claim 13, specifically the limits of “n.” Claim 13 and [0050]-[0051] of applicant’s specification recite a solid electrolyte represented by Formula 1 Li+12-n-zAn+B2-6-zY'-z in which 1<n<5. [0052] provides an example electrolyte, presumably represented by Formula 1, such as Li6PS5Cl (equivalent to Li+6P5+S2-5Cl in which “n” is 5); Li6PS5Cl is also used in the preparation examples included in the specification. However, the limits of “n” as recited in the applicant’s disclosure are not inclusive of 5. Applicant should correct the boundary limits of Formula 1 to show inclusivity of 5 such as by reciting 1<n≤5. Further, the boundary limits of Formula 1 and other recited formulas should be reviewed to ensure consistency with the scope of applicant’s invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 4-9, 11-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Burdynska et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210194039 A1) as further evidenced by Hansen (Hansen Solubility Parameters: A Users Handbook (CRC press, 2007)) (Cited in the IDS) and PubChem (National Center for Biotechnology Information (2026). PubChem Compound Summary for CID 7635, 2-Ethylhexyl Acetate. Retrieved January 28, 2026 from https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/2-Ethylhexyl-Acetate).
Regarding Claim 1 as related to anticipation, Burdynska et al. teaches a solvent for preparing a solid electrolyte layer ([0134], [0139]) in which the solvent can include 2-ethylhexyl acetate ([0072]).
Burdynska does not disclose the Hansen solubility parameters or vapor pressure of the solvent.
"To serve as an anticipation when the reference is silent about the asserted inherent characteristic, such gap in the reference may be filled with recourse to extrinsic evidence. Such evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill." Continental Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749-50 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (see MPEP 2131.01.III).
The Hansen solubility parameters of 2-ethylhexyl acetate and vapor pressure at 25°C are inherent properties in which are readily available in the field of endeavor, as further evident by Hansen and Pubchem. Hansen provides the Hildebrand solubility parameter equation δ2 = δ2D + δ2P + δ2H (equivalent to claimed Equation 1) where δD is the dispersion energy parameter, δP is a polar-dipolar energy parameter, and δH is a hydrogen bonding energy parameter (pg. 5-6, Equation 1.8). Hansen teaches solubility parameters of 2-ethylhexyl acetate where δD is 15.8 Mpa1/2 (within the claimed range of about 15 to 18.2 Mpa1/2), δP is 2.9 (within the claimed range of about 0 to 4 Mpa1/2), and δH is 5.1 (within the claimed range of 0 Mpa1/2 to about 6 Mpa1/2). (Solvent No. 346 of Appendix Table A.1). Further, PubChem teaches a vapor pressure of 2-ethylhexyl acetate of 0.23 mmhg (~31 pascal) at 25°C (pg. 8), within the claimed range of about 26.66 Pascal to about 600 Pascal at 25°C. Given the Hansen solubility parameters of 2-ethylhexyl acetate, it is within the capabilities of a skilled artisan to calculate δ from equation δ2 = δ2D + δ2P + δ2H by substituting the known parameters disclosed above, providing δ equal to about 16.9 Mpa1/2 (within the claimed range of about 16.4 Mpa1/2 to 18.2 Mpa1/2). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
As related to obviousness, as Burdynska et al. teaches 2-ethylhexyl acetate within a list of suitable solvents, the selection of 2-ethylhexyl acetate is deemed obvious. “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)” (see MPEP 2144.07). It would be obvious to select 2-ethylhexyl acetate from the list of suitable solvents disclosed by Burdynska et al. as it is a lower polarity solvent that does not affect inorganic conductors and is among a narrow list of suitable solvents (para. 72). Other factors that can persuade the selection of 2-ethylhexyl acetate include availability and cost.
Regarding Claim 4, Burdynska et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. The boiling point of 2-ethylhexyl acetate is an inherent property that is well known and readily available in the field of endeavor, as further evidenced by PubChem. Pubchem teaches that 2-ethylhexyl acetate has a boiling point of 199°C (pg. 6), within the claimed range of 145°C to about 220°C. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 5, Burdynska et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. The flash point of 2-ethylhexyl acetate is an inherent property that is well known and readily available in the field of endeavor, as further evidenced by PubChem. Pubchem teaches that 2-ethylhexyl acetate has a flash point of 82.2 deg. C (pg. 7), within the claimed range of 30°C to about 90°C. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 6, Burdynska et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, Burdynska et al. teaches that the solvent can include 2-ethylhexyl acetate. Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Burdynska et al. useful in providing a composite electrolyte that has good electrochemical stability and high elasticity, bendability, and mechanical strength in which can be incorporated in all-solid-state batteries (para. 30).
Regarding Claim 7, Burdynska et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Burdynska et al. teaches a binder composition comprising a solvent and a binder ([0014] teaches a slurry composition comprising a polymer binder dissolved in a solvent). Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Burdynska et al. useful in providing a composite electrolyte that has good electrochemical stability and high elasticity, bendability, and mechanical strength in which can be incorporated in all-solid-state batteries (para. 30).
Regarding Claim 8, Burdynska et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 7 above. Burdynska et al. teaches that the polymer binder can include a first polymer such as styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) (para. 4-5). Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Burdynska et al. useful in providing a composite electrolyte that has good electrochemical stability and high elasticity, bendability, and mechanical strength in which can be incorporated in all-solid-state batteries (para. 30).
Regarding Claim 9, Burdynska et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 7 above. Burdynska et al. teaches that the polymer binder can include a first polymer such as styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) (para. 4-5). Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Burdynska et al. useful in providing a composite electrolyte that has good electrochemical stability and high elasticity, bendability, and mechanical strength in which can be incorporated in all-solid-state batteries (para. 30).
Regarding Claim 11, Burdynska et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Burdynska et al. teaches a solid electrolyte layer formed from a solid electrolyte slurry comprising a sulfide-containing solid electrolyte (para. 8, Claim 10 teaches that the solid electrolyte slurry can include ionically conductive sulfidic particles in which can include sulfide glass particles such as Li2S-P2S5, para. 71, 78), a solvent, and a binder (para. 8). Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Burdynska et al. useful in providing a composite electrolyte that has good electrochemical stability and high elasticity, bendability, and mechanical strength in which can be incorporated in all-solid-state batteries (para. 30).
Regarding Claim 12, Burdynska et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 11 above. As applied to Claim 11, Burdynska et al. teaches that the sulfide-containing solid electrolyte can comprise Li2S-P2S5 (para. 78). Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Burdynska et al. useful in providing a composite electrolyte that has good electrochemical stability and high elasticity, bendability, and mechanical strength in which can be incorporated in all-solid-state batteries (para. 30).
Regarding Claim 13, Burdynska et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 11 above. Burdynska et al. teaches that the sulfide-containing solid electrolyte can include an argyrodite that has the formula Li7-xPS6-xXx (X=Cl, Br, I, and 0<x<2) (para. 21) such as Li6PS5Cl (para. 29) (equivalent to the example provided in applicant’s disclosure (para. 52) in which presumably meets the limitations of claimed Formula 1 Li+12-n-zAn+B2-6-zY'-z wherein A is P, B is S, Y’ is Cl, n is 5) (see objection to the claims and specification). Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Burdynska et al. useful in providing a composite electrolyte that has good electrochemical stability and high elasticity, bendability, and mechanical strength in which can be incorporated in all-solid-state batteries (para. 30).
Regarding Claim 14, Burdynska et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 11 above. Burdynska et al. teaches that the solid electrolyte slurry has a solids content of about 40 wt.% to 50 wt.% based on the total weight of the solid electrolyte slurry (para. 120), touching the claimed range of about 50 wt.% to 70 wt.%. “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)”. . . “(The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range)” (see MPEP 2144.05.I). Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Burdynska et al. useful in providing a composite electrolyte that has good electrochemical stability and high elasticity, bendability, and mechanical strength in which can be incorporated in all-solid-state batteries (para. 30).
Regarding Claim 17, Burdynska et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 11 above. Burdynska et al. teaches that the solid electrolyte slurry can further include a dispersing agent (dispersant, para. 14, 115). A dispersant inherently functions to promote uniform distribution and precent agglomeration by definition. Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Burdynska et al. useful in providing a composite electrolyte that has good electrochemical stability and high elasticity, bendability, and mechanical strength in which can be incorporated in all-solid-state batteries (para. 30).
Regarding Claim 18, Burdynska et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 11 above. Burdynska et al. teaches that the solid electrolyte layer (composite film) has a thickness of 15 micrometers, within the claimed range of about 10 micrometers to about 150 micrometers (para. 119). Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Burdynska et al. useful in providing a composite electrolyte that has good electrochemical stability and high elasticity, bendability, and mechanical strength in which can be incorporated in all-solid-state batteries (para. 30).
Regarding Claim 19, Burdynska et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 11 above. Burdynska et al. teaches that the composite forming the solid electrolyte layer (film) (para. 4, 119, 134) has an ionic conductivity of at least 0.2 mS/cm at 25 deg. C (para. 16), within the claimed of about 0.1 to 5 mS/cm. Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Burdynska et al. useful in providing a composite electrolyte that has good electrochemical stability and high elasticity, bendability, and mechanical strength in which can be incorporated in all-solid-state batteries (para. 30).
Regarding Claim 20, Burdynska et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Burdynska et al. teaches an electrode current collector (positive current collector); and an electrode active material layer (cathode layer) disposed on the electrode current collector (para. 142). The cathode may be a composite material as described (para. 144) in which can include an electrode active material slurry comprising an electrode active material, a sulfide-containing solid electrolyte (inorganic conductor), a solvent (to dissolve the polymer binder), a conductive material (additive), and a binder (organic phase) (para. 124-128) (para. 144 teaches that one or both of the electrolyte cathode may be a composite material as described forming an electrode/electrolyte bilayer, Fig. 1C). Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Burdynska et al. useful in providing a composite electrolyte that has good electrochemical stability and high elasticity, bendability,
PNG
media_image1.png
175
188
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Burdynska et al. (Fig. 1C))]and mechanical strength in which can be incorporated in all-solid-state batteries (para. 30).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Burdynska et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210194039 A1) as further evidenced by Hansen (Hansen Solubility Parameters: A Users Handbook (CRC press, 2007)) (Cited in the IDS) and PubChem (National Center for Biotechnology Information (2026). PubChem Compound Summary for CID 7635, 2-Ethylhexyl Acetate. Retrieved January 28, 2026 from https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/2-Ethylhexyl-Acetate) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kose et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2011129410 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Burdynska et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Burdynska et al. does not teach the Hansen solubility parameter distance represented by Equation 2 in which Ra2 = 4(δD1- δD2)2 + (δP1- δP2)2 + (δH1- δH2)2 in which δD1 is a dispersion energy parameter for 2-ethylhexyl acetate or xylene, δD2 is a dispersion energy parameter for the solvent, δP1 is a polar-dipolar energy parameter for 2-ethylhexyl acetate or xylene, δP2 is a polar-dipolar energy parameter for the solvent, δH1 is a hydrogen bonding energy parameter for 2-ethylhexyl acetate or xylene, and δH2 is a hydrogen bonding energy parameter for the solvent, wherein Ra for 2-ethylhexyl acetate and Ra for xylene, calculated by Equation 2, are each independently about 0 MPa1/2 to about 5 MPa1/2.
Kose et al. teaches calculating Hansen solubility parameters to determine a suitable solvent group for a solid electrolyte composition (para. 41-42). Calculation of the Hansen solubility parameters is important to determine a preferable solvent capable of dissolving the binder polymer (para. 45). Kose sites Hansen Solubility Parameters: A Users Handbook (CRC press, 2007) by Charles M Hansen for providing the definition and calculation of the Hansen solubility parameters (para. 43). Hansen provides a solubility parameter distance represented by equation (Ra)2 = 4(δD2 – δD1)2 + (δP2 – δP1)2 + (δH2 – δH1)2 (pg. 7, Equation 1.9). Kose et al. utilizes said equation to determine a solvent group capable of dissolving the polymer binder; the dissolution/solubility index provides a distance between a solvent proven to be capable of dissolving the polymer binder and a second solvent (para. 45-46). It is preferable to provide a solubility index (in this case “Ra”) of less than 20 (para. 45). When the solubility index is within said range, the solvent group is highly compatible with the polymer binder promoting dissolution (para. 48-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solvent of Burdynska et al. by Kose et al. to include a solvent group in which the suitable solvent and any additional solvents provide a distance (Ra)2 = 4(δD2 – δD1)2 + (δP2 – δP1)2 + (δH2 – δH1)2 in which Ra is less than 20 MPa1/2 as taught by Kose et al., overlapping the claimed range of about 0 MPa1/2 to about 5 MPa1/2(see MPEP 2144.05.I). As applied to Claim 1, the suitable solvent can be 2-ethylhexyl acetate as taught by Burdynska et al. in which 2-ethylhexyl acetate would be represented by δD1 , δP1 , δH1 , and the additional solvent would be represented by δD2 , δP2 , δH2 of the claimed Equation 2. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide a solvent in which is highly compatible with the polymer binder and is capable of dissolving the polymer binder as described above.
Regarding Claim 3, Burdynska et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 2 above. As applied to Claim 2, the solvent of Burdynska et al. is modified by Kose et al. to include a solvent group in which the Ra (for a suitable solvent (2-ethylhexyl acetate of Burdynska et al.) and an additional solvent) is less than 20 MPa1/2 (calculated by an equation equivalent to claimed Equation 2), overlapping the claimed range of about 0 MPa1/2 to about 3 MPa1/2 (see MPEP 2144.05.I). Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide a solvent in which is highly compatible with the polymer binder and is capable of dissolving the polymer binder (Kose et al., para. 48-49).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Burdynska et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210194039 A1) as further evidenced by Hansen (Hansen Solubility Parameters: A Users Handbook (CRC press, 2007)) (Cited in the IDS) and PubChem (National Center for Biotechnology Information (2026). PubChem Compound Summary for CID 7635, 2-Ethylhexyl Acetate. Retrieved January 28, 2026 from https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/2-Ethylhexyl-Acetate) as applied to Claim 7 above, and further in view of Maeda (U.S. Pat. No. 20210167389 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Burdynska et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 7 above.
Burdynska et al. does not teach that the binder composition has a solids content of about 0.1 wt. % to about 20 wt. %, based on total weight of the binder composition.
Maeda teaches a binder composition for a solid electrolyte battery having a solid content of 1 mass % or more and 40 mass % or less (para. 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the binder composition of Burdynska et al. by Maeda to include a solids content of 1 to 40 mass % (wt. %), within and overlapping the claimed range of 0.1 wt. % to about 20 wt. %, based on the total weight of the binder composition (see MPEP 2144.05.I). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide a slurry that can be easily applied and to facilitate handling (para. 28).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Burdynska et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210194039 A1) as further evidenced by Hansen (Hansen Solubility Parameters: A Users Handbook (CRC press, 2007)) (Cited in the IDS) and PubChem (National Center for Biotechnology Information (2026). PubChem Compound Summary for CID 7635, 2-Ethylhexyl Acetate. Retrieved January 28, 2026 from https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/2-Ethylhexyl-Acetate) as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Yoshida (U.S. Pat. No. 20210202987 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Burdynska et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 11 above.
Burdynska et al. does not teach that the sulfide-containing solid electrolyte is present in an amount of about 90 parts by weight to about 99.9 parts by weight, based on 100 parts by weight of the solid electrolyte layer.
Yoshida et al. teaches a sulfide-containing solid electrolyte (para. 95, Abstract) present in an amount of 70 to 100 mass % based on 100 mass % of the solid electrolyte layer; whereas the binder is present in an amount of 5 mass % or less (para. 95). When the sulfide-containing solid electrolyte and binder are present within said amount, excessive aggregation of the solid electrolyte is prevented, providing a uniformly disperses solid electrolyte for the purposes of achieving high power output (para. 95).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the solid electrolyte layer of Burdynska et al. to include 70 to 100 mass % (parts by weight) of the sulfide containing solid electrolyte based on 100 mass % (parts by weight) of the solid electrolyte layer, within and overlapping the claimed range of 90 parts by weight to about 99.9 parts by weight (see MPEP 2144.05.I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to prevent excessive aggregation of the solid electrolyte and provide uniform dispersion to achieve high power output as described above.
Regarding Claim 16, Burdynska et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 11 above.
Burdynska et al. does not teach that the binder is present in an amount of about 0.1 parts by weight to about 10 parts by weight, based on 100 parts by weight of the solid electrolyte layer.
Yoshida et al. teaches a sulfide-containing solid electrolyte (para. 95, Abstract) present in an amount of 70 to 100 mass % based on 100 mass % of the solid electrolyte layer; whereas the binder is present in an amount of 5 mass % or less (para. 95). When the sulfide-containing solid electrolyte and binder are present within said amount, excessive aggregation of the solid electrolyte is prevented, providing a uniformly disperses solid electrolyte for the purposes of achieving high power output (para. 95).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the solid electrolyte layer of Burdynska et al. to include 5 mass % or less (parts by weight) of the binder based on 100 mass % (parts by weight) of the solid electrolyte layer, within and overlapping the claimed range of 0.1 to 10 parts by weight (see MPEP 2144.05.I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to prevent excessive aggregation of the solid electrolyte and provide uniform dispersion to achieve high power output as described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 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, ULA RUDDOCK can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729