DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 10-2020-0041189), machine translation.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Lee discloses an all-solid state lithium secondary battery comprising:
a solid electrolyte 112;
a cathode 120; and
a porous conductive sheet 111.
The porous conductive sheet is an electrospun polymer layer (Example, preparation 2). Figure 2 to Lee is provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
310
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses polyacrylonitrile (Example, preparation 2).
Regarding claims 7, 9, and 11, instant claims are regarded as a product by process. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “[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. In this case, the electrospun layer is between the cathode and the electrolyte (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses sulfide-based and LLZO-based solid electrolytes (para 0050-0051).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses cathode active material (para 0073) and binder resin (para 0079).
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses the cathode current collector in contact with the cathode (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses the anode adjacent to the electrolyte (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses the anode comprises lithium ions (para 0071).
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses the anode current collector in contact with the anode (Fig. 2).
Claims 1 and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR 10-2019-0079171), machine translation.
Regarding claims 1, 8, 14, and 15, Kim discloses a hybrid solid electrolyte and secondary battery comprising:
an anode (e.g., Li);
a cathode (e.g., lithium nickel manganese oxide); and
a hybrid solid electrolyte therebetween (Fig. 5).
The hybrid solid electrolyte includes porous polymer layers 100, 200 and middle layer 300 (Fig. 1) with the polymer film formed by electrospinning (Fig. 6) resulting in the electrospun polymer layer positioned between the electrolyte and the cathode. Figures 1 and 6 to Kim provided below.
PNG
media_image2.png
194
624
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
460
544
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 7, 9, and 11, instant claims are regarded as a product by process. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “[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. In this case, the electrospun layer is between the cathode and the electrolyte (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses LLZO and sulfide-based electrolyte (para 0022-0023).
Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses a liquid electrolyte (abstract).
Regarding claim 13, cathodes commonly include a current collector and cathode active material.
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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 10-2020-0041189).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches the porous conductive sheet may have a thickness of 5 μm to 50 μm (para 0041), which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range of 5 μm or less with at one common endpoint.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the recited thickness because a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, "[ A ] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 10-2019-0079171).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Kim teaches polyurethane (para 0027).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select polyurethane from the list of polymers recited.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS BARCENA whose telephone number is (571)270-5780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-5 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)272-3066. 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.
/CARLOS BARCENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723