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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, species I: claims 1-7 and 20in the reply filed on 06/30/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Group I encompassing. Claim 10 is amended to adopt the subject matter of former claim 8, and is marked "withdrawn". However, as claim 10 is a proper dependent claim, applicant respectfully traverses the restriction requirement and requests reconsideration of the restriction requirement as applied to claim 10. This is not found persuasive because the amendment of claim 8 introduces a different species than that of claim 1. Therefore, in light of the amendment, an additional species restriction is required.
Note that applicant elected Group I in the reply filed on 06/30/2026 which also pertains to species I: claims 1-7 and 20 and will be treated as election by original presentation.
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Group I, species I: Claims 1-7 and 20 – [0116] a solid electrolyte comprising a solid material selected from the group consisting of at least one of a polymer, a ceramic material, and a polymer-ceramic composite material; and a phosphorus-containing plasticizer selected from the group consisting of a phosphazene and a phosphoranimine compound, which lacks hydroxyl and unstable phosphorus-halogen bonds without the salt
Group II, species II: Claims 8-19 – [0118] another solid electrolyte comprising a salt comprising metal ions, and a solid material with a phosphorus compound distributed therein; the phosphorus compound may be a phosphazene and a phosphoranimine compound
The species are independent or distinct because as disclosed the different species have mutually exclusive characteristics for each identified species (See [0116, 0118] differences between the electrolytes). In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, none of the claims are generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: The species or grouping of species require a different field of search and utilize a different search strategy.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 objected to over CFR 1.121 (c) because of the following informalities: the amendments. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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.
Claims 1-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrup (US10707531B1) in view of Jang (US20220255129A1) and Du et al. (US20220131231A1).
Regarding claim 1, Harrup discloses an electrolyte ([Col. 25, line 6] electrolyte) comprising at least one phosphorus-containing plasticizer selected from the group consisting of a phosphazene and a phosphoranimine compound ([Col. 25, line 7] electrolyte comprises of phosphoranimine and phosphazene), which lacks hydroxyl and unstable phosphorus-halogen bonds ([Col. 29, lines 2-3).
Harrup does not disclose that the electrolyte is a solid electrolyte or that a solid material selected from the group consisting of at least one of a polymer, a ceramic material, and a polymer-ceramic composite material, wherein the solid electrolyte has a lithium-ion conductivity of at least 1×10−6 S/cm.
Jang discloses an electrolyte comprising a phosphazene ([0078]) in which the electrolyte is a solid electrolyte ([0078] solid-state electrolyte)
Harrup and Jang are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely battery electrolytes containing phosphazene.
It would have been well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to choose the electrolyte of Harrup such that it is a solid electrolyte from solid-state or quasi-solid electrolytes options as taught by Jang in order to result in a suitable phosphazene solid electrolyte for a lithium battery. MPEP 2143 I(E) Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Du discloses an electrolyte for a lithium-ion battery with a solid material selected from the group consisting of a polymer-ceramic composite material ([0079] electrolyte with ceramic-polymer composite) wherein the electrolyte has a lithium-ion conductivity of at least 1×10−6 S/cm ([0081] ionic conductivity of 10-7 S/cm or greater). Du also discloses that the ion conductivity allows ions of lithium to migrate through the material ([0071]) and that the polymer-ceramic can improve ionic conductivity ([0079]) with sufficient mechanical strength ([0082]).
Harrup and Du are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely electrodes in lithium-ion batteries.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the electrolyte of modified Harrup such that the electrolyte comprises a plasticizer with a solid-material selected from the group consisting of at least one of a polymer, a ceramic material, and a polymer-ceramic composite material having a lithium-ion conductivity of at least 1×10−6 S/cm as taught by Du in order for the polymer-ceramic material to improve ionic conductivity and allow ions of lithium to migrate through the material with sufficient mechanical strength. MPEP 2144.05 In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 2, Harrup discloses the solid electrolyte according to claim 1, wherein the at least one phosphorus-containing plasticizer comprises a phosphazene compound ([Col. 25, line 7]).
Regarding claim 3, Harrup discloses the solid electrolyte according to claim 1, wherein the at least one phosphorus-containing plasticizer comprises a phosphoranimine compound ([Col. 25, line 7]).
Regarding claim 4, Harrup discloses the solid electrolyte according to claim 1 but does not disclose that the solid material comprises a polymer material.
Du discloses the solid electrolyte according to claim 1, wherein the solid material comprises a polymer material ([0079] ceramic-polymer). Du also discloses that polymer may chemically react with the ionic conductive ceramics to improve ionic conductivity ([0079]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the solid electrolyte material of modified Harrup such that the solid material comprises a polymer material as taught by Du in order for the polymer material to chemically react with the ionic conductive ceramics to improve ionic conductivity. MPEP 2144.07 The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, Harrup discloses the solid electrolyte according to claim 1 but does not disclose that the solid material comprises a ceramic material.
Du discloses the solid electrolyte according to claim 1, wherein the solid material comprises a ceramic material ([0079] ceramic-polymer). Du also discloses that the ion conductivity allows ions of lithium to migrate through the material ([0071]) and that the polymer-ceramic can improve ionic conductivity ([0079]) with sufficient mechanical strength ([0082]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the solid electrolyte material of modified Harrup such that the solid material comprises a ceramic material as taught by Du in order to improve ionic conductivity with sufficient mechanical strength. MPEP 2144.07 The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, Harrup discloses the solid electrolyte according to claim 1 but does not disclose that the solid electrolyte further comprises an anode and a cathode separated by the solid electrolyte.
Jang discloses the solid electrolyte according to claim 1, further comprising an anode and a cathode separated by the solid electrolyte ([0043] solid-state electrolyte disposed between the anode and cathode). Jang also discloses that lithium ions are released from cathode active materials in the cathode, travel through the electrolyte/separator into the anode side, and get deposited on the surfaces of an anode current collector ([0159]).
It would have been well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the location of the solid electrolyte of modified Harrup such that the anode and cathode separated by the solid electrolyte as taught by Jang in order to allow lithium ions on the cathode side to travel through the electrolyte/separator into the anode side, and get deposited on the surfaces of an anode current collector
Regarding claim 7, Harrup discloses the solid electrolyte according to claim 1, further comprising a supporting salt ([Col. 25, line 23] supporting lithium salt).
Regarding claim 20, Harrup discloses an electrolyte plasticized with at least one of a phosphazene and phosphoranimine, having lithium ions ([Col. 25, line 26).
Harrup does not disclose that the electrolyte is a solid electrolyte and the electrolyte having a conductivity of at least 1x10-6 S/cm, comprising a ceramic material and an ion conducting polymer material.
Jang discloses an electrolyte comprising a phosphazene ([0078]) in which the electrolyte is a solid electrolyte ([0078] solid-state electrolyte)
It would have been well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to choose the electrolyte of Harrup such that it is a solid electrolyte from solid-state or quasi-solid electrolytes options as taught by Jang in order to result in a suitable solid phosphazene electrolyte for a lithium battery. MPEP 2143 I(E) Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Du discloses an electrolyte in a lithium-ion battery wherein the electrolyte has a lithium-ion conductivity of at least 1×10−6 S/cm ([0081] ionic conductivity of 10-7 S/cm or greater) comprising a ceramic material ([0079] electrolyte with ceramic-polymer composite) and an ion conducting polymer material ([0068] ionic conducting polymers). Du also discloses that the ion conductivity allows ions of lithium to migrate through the material ([0071]) and that the ion conducting polymer-ceramic can improve ionic conductivity ([0079]) with sufficient mechanical strength ([0082]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the electrolyte of modified Harrup such that the electrolyte has a lithium-ion conductivity of at least 1×10−6 S/cm comprising a ceramic material and an ion conducting polymer material as taught by Du in order for the polymer-ceramic material to allow ions of lithium to migrate through the material and improve ionic conductivity with sufficient mechanical strength. MPEP 2144.05 In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.07 The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Allcock et al. (US20020014616A1) discloses a gel polymer electrolyte using polyphosphazene to promote ionic conductivity ([0014]).
Harrup (US20160285125A1) discloses an all-inorganic electrolyte formulation comprising at least one of each a phosphoranimine, a phosphazene, and a supporting lithium salt. [(0045])
Klaehn et al. (US20170040638A1) discloses an electrolyte solution including a phosphoranimine compound ([0017])
Kim (US20200303729A1) discloses a multi-layer electrolyte comprising a polymer base and ceramic particles ([0038]).
Pistorino et al. (US20170187063A1) discloses high conductivity electrolyte from ceramic and polymeric materials ([0035]).
Kim et al. (KR20150069060A) discloses a solid polymer electrolyte with a phosphazene plasticizer and ceramic particles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAN N TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0183. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:30am-5pm.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at 5702701487. 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.
/DAN NGUYEN TRAN/
Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights