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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner notes the following amendments made to the claims:
Claims 1 and 3 amended
Claim 91 canceled (examiner acknowledges that this was done in a preliminary amendment)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/09/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 3 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Specifically, examiner notes that Zhao actually does teach milling to combine its ceramic and polymer components (“1 g of a mixture consisting of synthesized alumina nanoparticles, sodium carboxy methyl cellulose (CMC) and styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) in mass ratio of 95:2:3 is added into 10 mL of a mixed solution of deionized water and acetone (3:1, v:v). The resulting ceramic slurry is milled overnight and ultrasonically dispersed for 20 minutes as preparation for coating.” Zhao [0050]). Nevertheless, upon further consideration and in order to produce a stronger rejection, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Horie (US 20230317953 A1), which teaches a polymeric surfactant and a plurality of ceramic particles mixed together, in any method known in the art. One or ordinary skill would be capable of using milling for this process, as it is a known method in the art for combining components in a mixture used in the battery field (See Pistorino [US 20170187063 A1]).
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 regarding all pending claims other than 1 and 3 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant finds that the previously applied prior art still meets all of the claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 7-8, 13, 50-52, 57, 60-62, 81, 90, and 93, the primary argument provided by applicant is that Zhang fails to teach ceramic particles which are fused to each other. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. First, applicant argues that the particles of Zhang are not fused to one another within the layer, and that all of the particles are discrete/not discernible from another particle. Applicant supports this argument by saying that Zhang example 1, which states that the ceramic has a certain particle size, demonstrates that Zhang does not meet this limitation. Aside from this one statement, all of the arguments come from applicant showing their own figures and definitions for terms. There is no SEM image provided from Zhang, and nothing to suggest that the sintering/agglomeration process of Zhang to form the particles would not fuse particles together. There is also no argument made that the sintering process of Zhang would not coalesce multiple articles into a more solid mass/particle, which could then be used within the coating layer of Zhang. Applicant would need to further define either the fusion itself of how the fusion is achieved in order to have these specific characteristics in order to overcome the prior art. Simply stating that the particles are fused together is not sufficient to overcome the prior art.
Regarding claim 12, applicant argues that it would not be obvious to combine Zhang and Laramie because Zhang teaches a wet coating process and Laramie teaches a dry deposition process. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive, as one of ordinary skill in the art could use the process of Laramie after the polymer matrix of Zhang were coated, in order to achieve the beneficial effects of both inventions. Both are related to the formation of a layer including an ion conductive ceramic, and both are within the same classification/field of study. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be capable of combining the methods of different teachings in order to achieve optimal results. For example, using the teachings of Laramie to form an ADM layer which includes the compositions of Zhang, i.e. using aerosol deposition instead of a doctor blade coating method. Laramie also teaches that its protective layer including fused particles has improved properties, which would provide sufficient motivation for this modification (“As described herein, it may be desirable to determine if an ion-conductive layer (e.g., comprising a plurality of fused particles) has advantageous properties as compared to other materials used as a protective layer (e.g., a protective layer formed of a polymeric material alone, a protective layer formed of an ion-conductive material alone, or combinations thereof) for particular electrochemical systems.” Laramie [0102]). It could also be argued that Laramie could be used to reject claims 7 and 12 in view of Zhao without the presence of Zhang, as Laramie teaches a layer including ceramic particles ([0027]), a surfactant ([0076]), and an aerosol deposition method used to fuse particles ([0044] and figure 2) and could be modified by Zhao to have the specific sizes of ceramic. Since examiner finds the previously applied rejection sufficient, the previous rejection remains in place, but even if that were overcome, further amendment would be required to move past the teachings of Laramie and Zhao.
Regarding claim 55, applicant provides no further argument other than that claim 55 is dependent on claim 7, which is patentable in view of the applicant. However, since examiner finds that the previous rejection of claim is sufficient, the rejection of claim 55 is maintained.
Regarding claim 70, applicant provides no further argument other than that claim 70 is dependent on claim 7, which is patentable in view of the applicant. However, since examiner finds that the previous rejection of claim is sufficient, the rejection of claim 70 is maintained.
Regarding claim 96, applicant provides no further argument other than that claim 96 is dependent on claim 7, which is patentable in view of the applicant. However, since examiner finds that the previous rejection of claim is sufficient, the rejection of claim 96 is maintained.
Regarding claim 101, applicant provides no further argument other than that claim 101 is dependent on claim 13, which is dependent on claim 7, which is patentable in view of the applicant. However, since examiner finds that the previous rejection of claim is sufficient, the rejection of claim 101 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horie (US 20230317953 A1) in view of Pistorino (US 20170187063 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Horie teaches all of the following elements:
A mixture, comprising: a plurality of ceramic particles and a polymeric surfactant; (“The coating layer preferably contains a polymer compound, a conductive assistant and ceramic particles.” Horie [0077] and “The method for producing coated negative electrode active material particles for lithium ion batteries of the present invention includes a mixing process in which a solution in which a polymer compound and a compound (A) are dissolved in an organic solvent and negative electrode active material particles are mixed.” Horie [0102])
wherein the plurality of ceramic particles has a median diameter of greater than or equal to 600 nanometers and less than or equal to 6 microns (“In consideration of the energy density and electrical resistance value, the volume average particle size of the ceramic particles is preferably 1 to 1,200 nm” Horie [0092])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 1-1200nm for the median diameter of the ceramic particles overlaps the claimed range of 600nm-6um for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Horie is silent on the following elements of claim 1. Specifically, Horie doesn’t explicitly teach milling, but does teach that known mixing methods can be used (“A method for mixing a solution in which a polymer compound and a compound (A) are dissolved in an organic solvent and negative electrode active material particles is not particularly limited, and a known method can be used.” Horie [0105].)
and wherein the mixture is a milled mixture.
However, Pistorino explicitly teaches milling as a method of mixing ceramic and polymeric materials for use in a layer:
and wherein the mixture is a milled mixture. (“A polymer solution was made by mixing together 2 g poly(ethylene glycol) dimethyl ether, 0.07 g LiTFSI (salt), and 0.105 g of poly(ethylene glycol) bis(carboxymethyl) ether. The solution (0.5 g) was milled into 1.5 g of LLTO to form a paste. The paste was coated onto aluminum current collectors and an impedance cell was constructed.” Pistorino [0062]. In this case, LLTO is the ceramic and the polymers are the polymeric surfactant, being milled together to form a milled mixture.)
Horie and Pistorino are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of mixtures of ceramic and polymer materials for use in electrochemical cells. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mixture of Horie to be mixed via a milling process, as Horie states that any known method may be used, and Pistorino explicitly teaches that milling is a known process in the art for mixing a ceramic and polymeric material.
By modifying Horie to specifically be a milled mixture, no further modification or motivation would be required to meet the additional limitations of claim 3:
Regarding claim 3, Horie teaches all of the following elements:
A mixture, comprising: a plurality of ceramic particles and a polymeric surfactant; (“The coating layer preferably contains a polymer compound, a conductive assistant and ceramic particles.” Horie [0077] and “The method for producing coated negative electrode active material particles for lithium ion batteries of the present invention includes a mixing process in which a solution in which a polymer compound and a compound (A) are dissolved in an organic solvent and negative electrode active material particles are mixed.” Horie [0102])
wherein the polymeric surfactant has a molecular weight of greater than or equal to 300 g/mol (“A preferable lower limit of the weight-average molecular weight of the polymer compound constituting the coating layer is 3,000, a more preferable lower limit is 5,000, and a still more preferable lower limit is 7,000. On the other hand, a preferable upper limit of the weight-average molecular weight of the polymer compound is 100,000, and a more preferable upper limit is 70,000.” Horie [0360]. This anticipates the claimed range.)
Horie is silent on the following elements of claim 3. Specifically, Horie doesn’t explicitly teach milling, but does teach that known mixing methods can be used (“A method for mixing a solution in which a polymer compound and a compound (A) are dissolved in an organic solvent and negative electrode active material particles is not particularly limited, and a known method can be used.” Horie [0105].)
and wherein the mixture is a milled mixture.
However, Pistorino explicitly teaches milling as a method of mixing ceramic and polymeric materials for use in a layer:
and wherein the mixture is a milled mixture. (“A polymer solution was made by mixing together 2 g poly(ethylene glycol) dimethyl ether, 0.07 g LiTFSI (salt), and 0.105 g of poly(ethylene glycol) bis(carboxymethyl) ether. The solution (0.5 g) was milled into 1.5 g of LLTO to form a paste. The paste was coated onto aluminum current collectors and an impedance cell was constructed.” Pistorino [0062]. In this case, LLTO is the ceramic and the polymers are the polymeric surfactant, being milled together to form a milled mixture.)
Claim(s) 7, 8, 13, 50-52, 57, 60-62, 81, 90, 93 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20220158237 A1) in view of Zhao (US 20180226624 A1)
Regarding claim 7, Zhang teaches the following elements:
A layer, comprising: a plurality of ceramic particles, wherein at least a portion of the plurality of particles are fused to one another, (“One or both polymer-based electrolyte layers on the opposite sides of the porous, electrically non-conducting membrane can contain a ceramic material.” Zhang [0024] And “The glass-ceramic can be produced by ceramicization from a starting glass or by ceramicization and sintering and/or pressing of starting glass powder.” Zhang [0025]. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the definition of sintering is the fusion/agglomeration/coalescing of particles into a more solid mass, and therefore the sintering step of producing the ceramic material of Zhang would meet the above limitation.)
and a polymeric surfactant; (“A polymer-based electrolyte layer which contains a lithium ion-conducting ceramic preferably comprises: a polymer selected from the group comprising PEO, polyethylene glycol,” Zhang [0028-0029]. Polyethylene glycol is stated in claims 61, 62, and in the instant specification as being a suitable polymeric surfactant, and therefore meets the limitation of the claim.)
Zhang is silent on the following elements of claim 7:
wherein prior to fusion, the plurality of ceramic particles has a median diameter of greater than or equal to 600 nanometers and less than or equal to 6 microns.
However, Zhao teaches all of the elements of claim 7 that are not found in Zhang:
wherein prior to fusion, the plurality of ceramic particles has a median diameter of greater than or equal to 600 nanometers and less than or equal to 6 microns. (“an inorganic power in the ceramic layer has a particle size of 5 nm to 10 μm, and the material of the organic support layer has a molecular weight of 1000-100000000” Zhao [0009])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 5nm-10um for the particle size of the ceramic material in the mixture encompasses the claimed range of 600nm-6um for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Zhao and Zhang are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of ceramic layers in electrochemical devices containing a polymer. Examiner acknowledges that Zhang is technically within an electrolyte layer and Zhao is a separator, and finds that these are similar enough in function and placement within the electrochemical devices that modification of one via the teachings of the other would be within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte layer of Zhang containing a ceramic and polymer to use the ceramic material particle size taught by Zhao, as this sets a workable range within the same field. See Re Boesch for justification that selecting workable ranges from known ranges is obvious. Regarding dependent claims, it would also be obvious to modify the molecular weight of the polymeric surfactant for the same reasoning as above—that Zhao teaches a workable range of this parameter within the field—and additionally to use spherical particles, as Zhao teaches that this is a standard practice in the art.
By modifying Zhang with the ceramic particle size, polymer molecular weight, and/or ceramic particle shape of Zhao, add the limitations of claims 8, 13, 50-52, 57, 60-62, 81, 90, and 93 would be met without requiring any further modification or motivation.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang teaches all of the following elements:
The layer of claim 7, wherein the polymeric surfactant has a molecular weight of greater than or equal to 300 g/mol. (“A polymer-based electrolyte layer which contains a lithium ion-conducting ceramic preferably comprises: [0029] a polymer selected from the group comprising PEO, polyethylene glycol, PPC, PEC, MEEP, PPO, polysiloxane having an average molecular weight of from 300 g/mol to 10 000 g/mol,” Zhang [0028].” This anticipates the claimed range.)
Regarding claim 13, Zhang teaches all of the following elements:
An electrochemical cell comprising the layer of claim 7. (“The invention relates to a polymer-based electrolyte for an electrochemical cell” Zhang [0001])
Regarding claim 50, Zhang teaches all of the following elements:
The layer of claim 7,wherein the plurality of ceramic particles comprises sulfides and/or oxides. (“In embodiments, the lithium ion-conducting glass-ceramic comprises … or solid lithium sulfides such as Li.sub.10GeP.sub.2S.sub.12.” Zhang [0025])
Regarding claim 51, Zhang teaches all of the following elements:
The layer of claim 7 wherein the plurality of ceramic particles comprises Li7La3Zr202 (LLZO), Li22SiP2S18, an antiperovskite, beta-alumina, a sulfide glass, an oxide glass, a lithium phosphorus oxinitride, a Li replaceable NASICON ceramic, Lii+x~yAlxTi2-xSiyP3-yO12 where x is between 0 and 2 and y is between 0 and 1.25, Li2O-A1203-SiO2-P205-TiO2-GeO2, Li2O-A1203-SiO2-P205-TiO2, and/or a lithium borosilicate glass. (“In embodiments, the lithium ion-conducting glass-ceramic comprises a lithium ion-conducting crystal phase which is a NASICON-like phosphate glass-ceramic of the empirical formula Li.sub.1+x(Al, Ge).sub.x(PO.sub.4).sub.3, where 0≤x<1 and (1+x)>1, a lithium compound having a garnet-like structure such as LLZO with various dopants or solid lithium sulfides such as Li.sub.10GeP.sub.2S.sub.12.” Zhang [0025])
Regarding claim 52, modified Zhang teaches all of the elements of claim 7, as shown above. Zhang is silent on the following elements of claim 52:
The layer of claim 7 wherein the plurality of ceramic particles has a median diameter of greater than or equal to 1 micron and less than or equal to 4 microns.
However, Zhao teaches all of the elements of claim 52 that are not found in Zhang:
The layer of claim 7 wherein the plurality of ceramic particles has a median diameter of greater than or equal to 1 micron and less than or equal to 4 microns. (“an inorganic power in the ceramic layer has a particle size of 5 nm to 10 μm, and the material of the organic support layer has a molecular weight of 1000-100000000” Zhao [0009])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 5nm-10um for the particle size of the ceramic material in the mixture encompasses the claimed range of 1um-4um for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 57, modified Zhang teaches all of the elements of claim 7, as shown above. Zhang is silent on the following elements of claim 57:
The layer of claim 7 wherein the plurality of ceramic particles has an aspect ratio of greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 10.
However, Zhao teaches all of the elements of claim 57 that are not found in Zhang.
The layer of claim 7 wherein the plurality of ceramic particles has an aspect ratio of greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 10. (“ FIG. 1 shows a SEM image of the modified ceramic-coated separator containing alumina as inorganic powder. From the photographs, it can be clearly observed that the alumina powder is evenly spread on the surface of the ordinary separator. The inorganic nanoparticles have spherical, linear, nanotubular, hexahedron and other shapes.” Zhao [0052]. Aspect ratio is the ratio of the longest vs the shortest dimension of a particle. In the case of a spherical particle, the aspect ratio would be 1. Therefore, by teaching the use of spherical inorganic particles, Zhao teaches a particle having an aspect ratio within the claimed range.)
Zhao and Zhang are considered to be analogous for the reasons provided above. It would additionally have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to use the particle shape of Zhao in the ceramic particle of Zhang because Zhao teaches that using a spherical particle is known in the art, and therefore would be within the ambit of one of ordinary skill to use.
Regarding claim 60, modified Zhang teaches all of the elements of claim 7, as shown above. Zhang is silent on the following elements of claim 60:
The layer of claim 7 wherein the polymeric surfactant has a molecular weight of greater than or equal to 10,000 g/mol.
However, Zhao teaches all of the elements of claim 60 that are not found in Zhang:
The layer of claim 7 wherein the polymeric surfactant has a molecular weight of greater than or equal to 10,000 g/mol. (“an inorganic power in the ceramic layer has a particle size of 5 nm to 10 μm, and the material of the organic support layer has a molecular weight of 1000-100000000” Zhao [0009])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 1000-100000000 g/mol for the molecular weight of the polymeric surfactant in the mixture overlaps the claimed range of greater than 300 g/mol for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 61, Zhang teaches all of the following elements:
The layer of claim 7 wherein the polymeric surfactant comprises polyacrylic acid, polyethylene glycol, polyvinylpyrrolidone, CMC, a silicon polymeric surfactant, a polysaccharide, a polysulfonate, a sulphonated styrene/maleic anhydride co-polymer, a polyacrylamide, polyvinylidene fluoride, and/or polyvinylidene chloride. (“In embodiments, the polymer-based electrolyte layer(s) comprise a polymer selected from the group comprising polyethylene oxide (PEO), polyethylene glycol,” Zhang [0019])
Regarding claim 62, Zhang teaches all of the following elements:
The layer of claim 7 wherein the polymeric surfactant comprises PEG400, polyethylene glycol tert-octylphenyl ether, PVP40, and/or PVP8. (“In embodiments, the polymer-based electrolyte layer(s) comprise a polymer selected from the group comprising polyethylene oxide (PEO), polyethylene glycol,” Zhang [0019]. PEG400 is a type polyethylene glycol that is commonly known in the art, and therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to be used.)
Regarding claim 81, Zhang teaches all of the following elements:
The electrochemical cell of claim 13,wherein the electrochemical cell comprises one or more electrodes, wherein the one or more electrodes comprises lithium metal and/or a lithium alloy. (“FIG. 1 shows a schematic view of a lithium metal battery which contains a three-layer electrolyte arrangement 2 according to one embodiment of the invention. The battery has a lithium metal anode 1” Zhang [0061])
Regarding claim 90, Zhang teaches all of the following elements:
The layer of claim 7 wherein the layer has a thickness of greater than or equal to 2 microns and less than or equal to 15 microns. (“The layer thickness of the polymer-based electrolyte layer which contains a glass-ceramic material can be in the range from ≥0.1 μm to ≤50 μm.” Zhang [0017])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.1-50 μm for the thickness of the polymer and ceramic containing layer of Zhang encompasses the claimed range of 2-15 μm for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 93, Zhang teaches all of the following elements:
The layer of claim 7 wherein at least 30% of the plurality of ceramic particles are bound to the polymeric surfactant. (“One or both polymer-based electrolyte layers on the opposite sides of the porous, electrically non-conducting membrane can contain a ceramic material. Advantageously, a layer containing lithium ion-conducting ceramic promotes the stability of the arrangement, so that it does not shrink or at least shrinks to a much lower extent.” Zhang [0024]. By having ceramic particles entirely surrounded in a polymer layer, they would be bound as the polymer is acting as a binder. Barring a more specific definition of bound, regarding specific molecular connections, this limitation would be met by Zhang, as within each layer, all of the ceramic particles would be bound to the polymeric surfactant—in this case, polyethylene glycol among others.)
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20220158237 A1) in view of Zhao (US 20180226624 A1) and further in view of Laramie (US 20170338475 A1)
Regarding claim 12, modified Zhang teaches all of the elements of claim 7, as shown above. Zhang and Zhao are silent on the following elements of claim 12:
The layer of claim 7, wherein the layer is formed by an aerosol deposition method (ADM).
However, Laramie teaches all of the elements of claim 12 not found in Zhang or Zhao. Specifically, Laramie teaches the method of deposition as claimed:
The layer of claim 7, wherein the layer is formed by an aerosol deposition method (ADM). (“In some embodiments, the protective layer (e.g., the porous protective layer) comprises an ionically conductive material (e.g., an ion conductive ceramic). In certain embodiments, the protective layer (e.g., the porous protective layer) comprises an ionically conductive material and a second material such as a non-ionically conductive material (e.g., a non-ionically conductive ceramic) and/or a polymer” Laramie [0047]) and “As described herein, in some aspects a layer (e.g., a second layer such as a protective layer) is formed by a method involving aerosol deposition of particles. Aerosol deposition, as described herein, generally results in the collision and/or elastic deformation of at least some of the plurality of particles. In some aspects, aerosol deposition can be carried out under conditions (e.g., using a velocity) sufficient to cause fusion of at least some of the plurality of particles to at least another portion of the plurality of particles.” Laramie [0073])
Laramie and Zhang are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of ceramic/polymer materials being used as a layer in an electrochemical cell. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the aerosol deposition method of Laramie to form the ceramic/polymer layer in order to cause fusion of a plurality of particles to another plurality of particles (“Aerosol deposition, as described herein, generally results in the collision and/or elastic deformation of at least some of the plurality of particles. In some aspects, aerosol deposition can be carried out under conditions (e.g., using a velocity) sufficient to cause fusion of at least some of the plurality of particles to at least another portion of the plurality of particles.” Laramie [0073]).
Claim(s) 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20220158237 A1) in view of Zhao (US 20180226624 A1) and further in view of Veith (20170104236 A1)
Regarding claim 55, modified Zhang teaches all of the elements of claim 7, as shown above. Zhang and Zhao are silent on the following elements of claim 55:
The layer of claim 7 wherein the plurality of ceramic particles has a polydispersity index of less than or equal to 0.5.
However, Veith teaches all of the elements of claim 55 that are not found in Zhang or Zhao. Specifically, Veith teaches a polydispersity index that anticipates the claimed range:
The layer of claim 7 wherein the plurality of ceramic particles has a polydispersity index of less than or equal to 0.5. (“Preparing shear thickening ceramic particles so that the shear thickening ceramic particles have passively a polydispersity index of no greater than 0.1, an average particle size of in a range of 50 nm to 1 μm, and an absolute zeta potential of greater than ±40 mV.” Veith [0018])
Veith is considered to be analogous to Zhang because they are both within the same field of ceramic and polymer materials being combined for use as a layer within an electrochemical cell. Specifically, Veith teaches an impact resistant electrolyte comprising a ceramic and a polymer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the layer of Zhang to have the polydispersity index taught by Veith in order to obtain the impact resistance benefits of Veith’s invention, which would be desirable in a battery to be used in a vehicle, for example. (“The passively impact resistant composite electrolyte composition of the invention undergoes a passive shear thickening phenomenon upon application of an external force, introducing a significant passive resistance against mechanical damage.” Veith [0065] and “A method of making a passively impact resistant composite electrolyte composition includes the step of preparing shear thickening ceramic particles so that the shear thickening ceramic particles have a polydispersity index of no greater than 0.1,” Veith [0060])
Claim(s) 70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20220158237 A1) in view of Zhao (US 20180226624 A1) and further in view of Jones (US 20120171569 A1)
Regarding claim 70, modified Zhang teaches all of the elements of claim 7, as shown above. Zhang and Zhao are silent on the following elements of claim 70:
The layer of claim 7,wherein the plurality of ceramic particles has a standard deviation in diameter of greater than or equal to 0 microns and less than or equal to 10 microns.
However, Jones teaches all of the elements of claim 70 that are not found in Zhang or Zhao. Specifically, Zhang teaches a standard deviation of ceramic particle size that, when used in combination with the particles of Zhao, would meet the claimed limitation:
The layer of claim 7,wherein the plurality of ceramic particles has a standard deviation in diameter of greater than or equal to 0 microns and less than or equal to 10 microns. (“Moreover when the ceramic is a conductive ceramic and the material is for use as an electrode, this also creates electrical paths and provides conductivity. Preferably the powder size distribution is relatively narrow since this provides improved strength and optionally gives good electrical connectivity. Preferably the agglomerates have an agglomerate size distribution with a standard deviation of less than about 50% of the mean particle size.” Jones [0059]. In this case, if the average particle size were in between 6nm and 6um, as taught by Zhang, the standard deviation would always be within 0-10um if it were 50% or less of the mean particle size)
Jones and Zhang are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of ceramics used in a layer in an electrode. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the particle size distribution of Zhang to have a standard deviation of less than about 50% of the mean particle size in order to improve strength and provide good electrical connectivity. Examiner notes that the ceramic material of Jones is in an electrode, whereas that of Zhang is within the electrolyte. However, examiner still finds that this modification would be within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art, particularly because the outer layers of Zhang’s electrolyte, which contain ceramic material, specifically contain metal ion-conductive ceramic material, and therefore increased electrical connectivity would be desirable.
Claim(s) 96 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20220158237 A1) in view of Zhao (US 20180226624 A1) and further in view of Liu (US 20200070102 A1)
Regarding claim 96, modified Zhang teaches all of the elements of claim 7, as shown above. The sintering method of Zhang would almost certainly meet the limitations of claim 96, and Liu is provided as an additional source demonstrating that fusing ceramic particles by sintering to form neck to neck bonds is desirable in a material being used in an electrochemical cell:
The layer of claim 7 wherein at least 30% of the plurality of ceramic particles are fused to another ceramic particle. (“The glass-ceramic can be produced by ceramicization from a starting glass or by ceramicization and sintering and/or pressing of starting glass powder. Such a glass-ceramic exhibits conductivity for metal ions and especially for lithium ions.” Zhang [0025]. By sintering a powder into a glass material, it is extremely unlikely that less than 30% of the particles would fuse to another particle, as this would require stopping the sintering process extremely early. Additionally, Liu teaches that sintering of ceramic particles to obtain neck-to-neck bonding is desirable, and depicts well over 30% of particles being fused together in its figures and SEM images “Sintering of the ceramic particles to obtain neck-to-neck bonding 114 is desirable for a stable membrane with strong adhesion on the support. A coating layer 102 without enough sintering would just be a loose layer of particle deposits that can be blown or washed away. Sintering of the particles 112 inside the support pores 116 with the particles 112 outside of the support pores 116 enables the ceramic membrane coating layer 102 to be locked into the support pores 116.” Liu [0009])
Liu and Zhang are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of ceramic particles being used in membrane-type layers in electrochemical cells. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sintering process of Zhang to make sure there is a sufficient amount of fusion/neck to neck bonding such that there is strong adhesion and the particles don’t wash away.
Claim(s) 101 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20220158237 A1) in view of Zhao (US 20180226624 A1), further in view of Liu (US 20200070102 A1), Veith (20170104236 A1), and Jones (US 20120171569 A1)
Regarding claim 101, modified Zhang teaches all of the elements of claim 13, as shown above. By incorporating the modifications used to meet the additional limitations of claims 55, 70, and 96, as shown above, a mixture/layer having the same properties as that of the instant claims would be produced. When used in an electrochemical cell, the properties would be the same as that in the instant claims/specification, and therefore would meet the limitations of claim 101
The electrochemical cell of claim 13,wherein the electrochemical cell has greater than or equal to 105% of the cycle life of an electrochemical cell without the layer, all other factors being equal. (By incorporating the teachings of Zhou and Zhang, with the additional optimization properties taught by Laramie, Veith, and/or Liu, the mixture and electrochemical cell would be analogous to that in the instant claims. The cycle life of a cell would be an inherent property of the cell, specifically, it would be the same between two of the same cell. Therefore, this limitation would be met without requiring the specific cycle life wording provided in the instant claims. See MPEP 2112. II. or Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., for case law regarding the fact that an inherent feature need not be recognized at the relevant time in order for it to still anticipate the feature, which is later recognized).
Conclusion
The following references were considered to be relevant in updated search but were not used in rejection:
Wook (KR20130007740A) –teaches milling as a process for mixing a polymeric surfactant and ceramic particle mixture (“10 parts by weight of solid polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF) powder was added to 90 parts by weight of a silicon nitride (Si3N4) powder based on 100 parts by weight of the total of the separator coating materials, and the mixture was dry ball-milled for 4 hours.” [0036])
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
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, NICHOLAS SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OLATUNJI A GODO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights