DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the August 24th, 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 24th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received on August 24th, 2026:
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are pending in the present application. Claims 1 has been amended. Claim 6 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 24th, 2026 have been fully considered as further described below:
Applicant presents arguments based on Claim 1 as amended. Applicant argues that the applied prior art fails to teach wherein the solvent comprises isobutyl isobutyrate, ethyl hexanoate, diisobutyl ketone, n- heptyl acetate, d-limonene, isopropylbenzene, or a combination thereof (see pgs. 9-11 of the “Remarks”). Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 1 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 4, 7-9, 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 Matsuo et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220263112 A1) as further evidenced by Hansen (Hansen Solubility Parameters: A Users Handbook (CRC press, 2007)) (Cited in the IDS), HSP Calculations (Hansen Solubility Parameters. A handy HSP Excel Spreadsheet, HSP_Calculations.xlsx, 2019, [online], [retrieved on 2026-09-18]. Retrieved from the internet: <URL: https://hansen-solubility.com/downloads.php>), and BenchChem (BenchChem Technical Support Team. Diisobutyl Ketone Vapor Pressure and Boiling Point Data. BenchChem, April 2026, [online], [retrieved on 2026-09-18]. Retrieved from the internet: <URL: https://pdf.benchchem.com/1173/Diisobutyl_Ketone_vapor_pressure_and_boiling_point_data.pdf>)
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, and wherein the solvent comprises isobutyl isobutyrate, ethyl hexanoate, diisobutyl ketone, n- heptyl acetate, d-limonene, isopropylbenzene, or a combination thereof.
In the same field of endeavor, Matsuo et al. teaches analogous art of a solid electrolyte layer for an all-solid-state secondary battery ([0007] teaches a slurry composition in which can be used to form a solid electrolyte layer). The slurry composition used to form a solid electrolyte comprises a solvent such as diisobutyl ketone (Abstract, [0177]) having a solubility parameter δ of 8.9 (cal/cm3)1/2, about 18.2 Mpa1/2. By using an organic solvent with a solubility parameter as disclosed, the solid electrolyte can be well dispersed, and fluidity and preservation stability of the slurry composition can be further increased ([0083]).
Therefore, 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 diisobutyl ketone having a Hansen solubility parameter δ of 18.2 Mpa1/2 as taught by Matsuo et al., meeting the limitations of the claimed range of about 16.4 Mpa1/2 to 18.2 Mpa1/2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide an organic solvent for use in a solid electrolyte layer with a solubility parameter that allows for the solid electrolyte to be well dispersed while increasing the fluidity and preservation stability of the slurry composition as described above. Additionally, “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 et al. in view of Matsuo et al. does not disclose the Hansen solubility parameters (i.e., dispersion energy parameter, polar-dipolar energy parameter, hydrogen bonding energy parameter) or vapor pressure of the solvent, diisobutyl ketone. The Hansen solubility parameters and vapor pressure are intrinsic properties of a substance.
The Hansen solubility parameters are readily available or can be predicted by known methods in the field of endeavor as recognized by Matsuo et al. Matsuo et al. teaches that the “solubility parameter (SP value)” referred to in the disclosure is the Hansen solubility parameter (δ) (units: (cal/cm.sup.3).sup.1/2), which is expressed by a relationship “δ2=δd2+δp2+δh2” wherein “δd” is a “term for the contribution of dispersion forces between molecules”, “δp” is a “term for the contribution of polar interactions between molecules”, and “δh” is a “term for the contribution of hydrogen bonds between molecules”, and these are physical property values dependent on the type of material (refer to Charles M. Hansen, “Hansen Solubility Parameters: A User's Handbook, Second Edition”, CRC Press, Boca Raton Fla., (2007) (hereinafter, also referred to simply as “the handbook”)); and in the case of an organic solvent that is not described in the handbook or the like, it is possible to use a predicted value that is
PNG
media_image1.png
21
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
17
339
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (HSP_Calculations (Hansen-solubility.com))]calculated using the computer software “Hansen Solubility Parameters in Practice (HSPiP)” ([0022]).
As further evidence, Hansen solubility parameter calculations are provided on Hansen-solubility.com (cited above as HSP Calculations) wherein diisobutyl ketone has a δD of 16 Mpa1/2 (within the claimed range of about 15 to 18.2 Mpa1/2), a δP of 3.7 Mpa1/2 (within the claimed range of about 0 to 4 Mpa1/2), and a δH of 4.1 Mpa1/2 (within the claimed range of 0 Mpa1/2 to about 6 Mpa1/2) (pg. 6). Further, Benchchem teaches a vapor pressure of diisobutyl ketone at 25°C of 0.22 kPa (220 Pa) (pg. 2), within the claimed range of about 26.66 Pa to 600 Pa. Therefore, diisobutyl ketone is deemed a solvent that satisfies the claimed Equation 1 and all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 4, Burdynska et al. is modified by Matsuo 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 Matsuo et al. to include diisobutyl ketone. The boiling point of diisobutyl ketone is an intrinsic property that is well known and readily available in the field of endeavor as further evidenced by Benchchem. Benchchem teaches that diisobutyl ketone has a boiling point of 169°C (pg. 2), within the claimed range of 145°C to about 220°C. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 7, Burdynska et al. is modified by Matsuo 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 Matsuo et al. to include diisobutyl ketone (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 Matsuo 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 Matsuo 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 Matsuo 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 Matsuo 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 Matsuo 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). 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 Matsuo 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 Matsuo 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 Matsuo 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).
Regarding Claim 19, Burdynska et al. is modified by Matsuo 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 [AltContent: textbox (Burdynska et al. (Fig. 1C))]
PNG
media_image3.png
175
188
media_image3.png
Greyscale
be incorporated in all-solid-state batteries (para. 30).
Regarding Claim 20, Burdynska et al. is modified by Matsuo 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 Matsuo et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220263112 A1), and further in view of Kose et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2011129410 A1) as further evidenced by Hansen (Hansen Solubility Parameters: A Users Handbook (CRC press, 2007)) (Cited in the IDS) and HSP Calculations (Hansen Solubility Parameters. A handy HSP Excel Spreadsheet, HSP_Calculations.xlsx, 2019, [online], [retrieved on 2026-09-18]. Retrieved from the internet: <URL: https://hansen-solubility.com/downloads.php>).
Regarding Claim 2, Burdynska et al. is modified by Matsuo 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.
In the same field of endeavor, Kose et al. teaches analogous art of 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).
Therefore, 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, when applying the concepts of Kose, 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 (diisobutyl ketone as modified by Matsuo et al.) represented by δD2 , δP2 , δH2 of the claimed Equation 2 to determine compatibility there between. Therefore, using the Hansen solubility parameters thereof (2-ethyl hexyl acetate: δD1 of 15.8, δP1 of 2.9, and δH1 of 5.1 (Hansen, Appendix Table A.1), diisobutyl Ketone (Matsuo et al.): δD2 of 16, δP2 of 3.7, and δH2 of 4.1 (HSP Calculations cited above), the Ra for 2-ethylhexyl acetate calculated by Equation 2 is 1.34 Mpa1/2, within the claimed range of 0 MPa1/2 to about 5 MPa1/2. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 3, Burdynska et al. is modified by Matsuo 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 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 (Kose et al., para. 48-49).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Burdynska et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210194039 A1) in view of Matsuo et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220263112 A1) as further evidenced by Monument Chemical (Monument Chemical. Diisobutyl Ketone, 2020-06-30, [online], [retrieved 2026-06-16]. Retrieved from the Internet <URL: https://monumentchemical.com/uploads/files/TDS/DIBK_-_TDS.pdf?v=1595975952381>).
Regarding Claim 5, Burdynska et al. is modified by Matsuo 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 Matsuo et al. to include diisobutyl ketone. The flash point of diisobutyl ketone is an intrinsic property that is well known and readily available in the field of endeavor, as further evidenced by Monument Chemical. Monument Chemical teaches that diisobutyl ketone has a flash point of 49°C (pg. 1), within the claimed range of 30°C to about 90°C. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
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 Matsuo et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220263112 A1) 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 Matsuo 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.
In the same field of endeavor, Maeda teaches analogous art of a binder composition for a solid electrolyte battery having a solid content of 1 mass % or more and 40 mass % or less (para. 28).
Therefore, 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 Matsuo et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220263112 A1) 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 Matsuo 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.
In the same field of endeavor, Yoshida et al. teaches analogous art of 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).
Therefore, 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 Matsuo 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).
Therefore, 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
Prosecution Insights