DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the May 4th, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”). The
text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior
Office 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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received on May 4th, 2026:
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 6, and 13 have been amended.
Claim 1 is amended to specify that the solvent does not comprise n-butyl butyrate, 2-ethylhexyl acetate, or trimethylbenzene.
Claim 6 is amended to remove n-butyl butyrate, 2-ethylhexyl acetate, and trimethylbenzene from the group of solvents.
Claim 13 is amended to replace “1<n<5” with “1<n≤5.” Said amendment overcomes the rejection of Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); therefore, said rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment finds support in the disclosure as originally filed including the specification ([0052], [0084]-[0085]). No new matter has been added.
The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as described below:
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). The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
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). The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
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). The rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
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). The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 4th, 2026 have been fully considered as further described below:
Applicant presents arguments to Claim 1 in which are based on the claims as amended (see pg. 9 of the “Remarks”). Applicant argues that the solvent, 2-ethylhexyl acetate, of Burdynska cannot anticipate amended Claim 1; applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Further, applicant argues that Hansen’s Handbook is a general treatise on solubility parameters; and does not describe sulfide-containing solid electrolytes and the specific problem of H2S generation, gas pressure, and slurry reactivity as described in the specification (see pg. 9 of the “Remarks”). Further, applicant argues that Hansen does not describe the requirement to maintain slurry viscosity in the 3,000-5,000 cP range during coating and drying as specified in the specification ([0053], [00122]).
“It is improper to import claim limitations from the specification” (see MPEP 2111.01(II)).
“Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103” (see MPEP 2112(III)).
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
In this case, the applicant has claimed a solvent based on its properties (i.e., vapor pressure, solubility parameters). Vapor pressures and solubility parameters are inherent properties in which are readily available in the field of endeavor; as further support, applicant’s specification suggests that solubility parameters are inherent properties ([0035]). As described in the rejection below, Osada et al. is relied upon to teach a solvent, hexyl acetate, for use in a sulfide based solid electrolyte. Hansen is then relied upon as an evidentiary reference to show the inherent solubility parameters of hexyl acetate. As further support of inherency, Claim 6 of the invention discloses that the solvent of Claim 1 can include hexyl acetate; as the prior art teaches the same solvent of the claimed invention, the properties of said solvent are deemed inherent (i.e., comprising a vapor pressure and solubility parameters within the claimed ranges). As limitations from the specification are not read into the claims, there is no requirement for Hansen to describe sulfide-containing solid electrolytes and the specific problems recited in the specification (i.e., slurry viscosity in the 3,000-5,000 cP range during coating and drying as specified in the specification). Further, product-by-process limitations are not given patentable weight.1 Therefore, applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
1“‘[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.’ In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)” (see MPEP 2113(I)).
Applicant further argues that Hansen does not provide a motivation to select a solvent while keeping the combination of vapor pressure and HSP ranges; and still solving the sulfide-electrolyte viscosity/reactivity problem (see pg. 10 of the “Remarks”).
“Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006)” (see MPEP 2143.01).
"The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious" Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (see MPEP 2145(II)).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, applicant is attacking only evidentiary reference Hansen when the rejection below is based on a combination of Burdynska et al. and Osada in evidence of Hansen and Pubchem. Burdynska et al. teaches a solvent for preparing a solid electrolyte layer. The solvent of Burdynska et al. is modified by Osada et al. to include hexyl acetate with a motivation to provide a sulfide-based solid electrolyte having a desired porosity with reduced immersion time; while Hansen and Pubchem are cited to show inherent properties of said solvent. Therefore, all claim limitations are taught by the prior art with a reasonable motivation in performing the described modification; and the advantage of solving the sulfide-electrolyte viscosity/reactivity problem would flow naturally from following the teachings of the prior art. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Cited Prior Art
Previously Cited Burdynska et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210194039 A1) (“Burdynska et al.”)
Previously cited Hansen (Hansen Solubility Parameters: A Users Handbook (CRC press, 2007)) (Cited in the IDS) (“Hansen”)
Previously Cited Kose et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2011129410 A1) (“Kose et al.”)
Previously Cited Maeda (U.S. Pat. No. 20210167389 A1) (“Maeda”)
Previously Cited Yoshida (U.S. Pat. No. 20210202987 A1) (“Yoshida”)
Osada et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210376379 A1) (“Osada et al.”)
PubChem (National Center for Biotechnology Information (2026). PubChem Compound Summary for CID 8908, Hexyl acetate. Retrieved June 16, 2026 from https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Hexyl-acetate.) (“PubChem”)
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 13 is amended to recite “1<n≤5,” overcoming the rejection under 112(b). However, the specification now lacks antecedent basis for the amended limitations; the specification should also be similarly amended in which “1<n<5” should rather recite “1<n≤5” throughout (i.e., [0051]). Support for said amendment is found in the preparation examples. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-9, 11-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Burdynska et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210194039 A1) in view of Osada et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210376379 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 8908, Hexyl acetate. Retrieved June 16, 2026 from https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Hexyl-acetate.).
Regarding Claim 1, Burdynska et al. teaches a solvent for preparing a solid electrolyte layer ([0134], [0139]).
Burdynska et al. does not appear to teach a solvent satisfying claimed Equation 1 in which the solvent does not comprise n-butyl butyrate, 2-ethylhexyl acetate, or trimethylbenzene.
Osada et al. teaches a solvent for preparing a sulfide-based solid electrolyte comprising hexyl acetate; Osada et al. teaches that the solubility parameter of hexyl acetate is suitable for obtaining a sulfide-based solid electrolyte having a desired porosity with reduced immersion time ([0059]).
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 solvent for preparing a solid electrolyte layer of Burdynska et al. to include hexyl acetate as taught by Osada et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a sulfide-based solid electrolyte having a desired porosity with reduced immersion time as described above. Further, “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).
Burdynska does not disclose the Hansen solubility parameters or vapor pressure of the solvent.
The Hansen solubility parameters of hexyl 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 hexyl 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 5.9 (within the claimed range of 0 Mpa1/2 to about 6 Mpa1/2) (Solvent No. 419 of Appendix Table A.1). Further, PubChem teaches a vapor pressure of hexyl acetate of 1.32 mmHg (~176 pascal) at 25°C (pg. 9), within the claimed range of about 26.66 Pascal to about 600 Pascal at 25°C. Given the Hansen solubility parameters of hexyl 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 17.1 Mpa1/2 (within the claimed range of about 16.4 Mpa1/2 to 18.2 Mpa1/2). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 4, Burdynska et al. is modified by Osada et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, the solvent of Burdynska et al. is modified by Osada et al. to include hexyl acetate. The boiling point of hexyl 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 hexyl acetate has a boiling point of 171.5°C (pg. 7), within the claimed range of 145°C to about 220°C. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 5, Burdynska et al. is modified by Osada et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, the solvent of Burdynska et al. is modified by Osada et al. to include hexyl acetate. The flash point of hexyl 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 hexyl acetate has a flash point of 45°C (pg. 8), within the claimed range of 30°C to about 90°C. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 6, Burdynska et al. is modified by Osada et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, the solvent of Burdynska et al. is modified by Osada et al. to include hexyl acetate. Therefore, all claim limitations are met. “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). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select hexyl acetate to provide an organic solvent with a suitable solvent parameter, providing a sulfide-based solid electrolyte having a desired porosity with reduced immersion time as described above.
Regarding Claim 7, Burdynska et al. is modified by Osada et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Burdynska et al. teaches that the solid electrolyte is formed using a binder composition comprising a solvent and a binder ([0014] teaches an electrolyte slurry composition comprising a polymer binder dissolved in a solvent). As applied to Claim 1, the solvent of Burdynska et al. is modified by Osada et al. to include hexyl acetate (in which is the solvent used in the binder composition to form the solid electrolyte). 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. is modified by Osada et al. teaching 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. is modified by Osada et al. teaching 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. is modified by Osada et al. teaching 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. is modified by Osada et al. teaching 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. is modified by Osada et al. teaching 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 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 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. is modified by Osada et al. teaching 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. is modified by Osada et al. teaching 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. is modified by Osada et al. teaching 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).
[AltContent: textbox (Burdynska et al. (Fig. 1C))]
PNG
media_image1.png
175
188
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 19, Burdynska et al. is modified by Osada et al. teaching 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. is modified by Osada et al. teaching 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, 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) in view of Osada et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210376379 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 8908, Hexyl acetate. Retrieved June 16, 2026 from https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Hexyl-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. is modified by Osada et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Further, Burdynska et al. teaches that the solvent can include 2-ethylhexyl acetate ([0072]).
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). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been 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.
Additionally, a skilled artisan would consider the solvent, 2-ethylhexyl acetate, of Burdynska et al. as the suitable solvent represented by δD1 , δP1 , δH1 , and the additional solvent (such as hexyl acetate as modified by Osada et al.) would be represented by δD2 , δP2 , δH2 of the claimed Equation 2 to determine compatibility there between. Therefore, using the Hansen solubility parameters (2-ethyl hexyl acetate: δD1 of 15.8, δP1 of 2.9, and δH1 of 5.1, Hexyl Acetate: δD2 of 15.8, δP2 of 2.9, and δH2 of 5.9; Hansen, Appendix Table A.1), the Ra for 2-ethylhexyl acetate, calculated by Equation 2 is 0.8 Mpa1/2, within the claimed range of 0 MPa1/2 to about 5 MPa1/2.
Regarding Claim 3, Burdynska et al. is modified by Osada et al. teaching 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) in view of Osada et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210376379 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 8908, Hexyl acetate. Retrieved June 16, 2026 from https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Hexyl-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. is modified by Osada et al. teaching 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) in view of Osada et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210376379 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 8908, Hexyl acetate. Retrieved June 16, 2026 from https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Hexyl-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. is modified by Osada et al. teaching 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. is modified by Osada et al. teaching 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 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
Prosecution Insights