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 .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action.
Priority
3. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. Information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted April 14, 2024, and June 20, 2025, have been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harry et al. (WO 2019/050618 A1) in view of Deng et al. (CN109768320A).
With regard to Claim 1, Harry et al. disclose a solid state composite organic-ceramic electrolyte including an organic electrolyte in which core/shell particles are dispersed, comprising a ligand composed by a ceramic powder and a nitrogen containing aromatic polymer, the core/shell particles having a core particle comprising an ionically-conductive ceramic electrolyte material, wherein the core/shell particles also have an electronically-conductive outer shell around the core particle, and wherein the electronically-conductive outer shell is an electronically-conductive polymer that may be any poly(acetylene)s, poly(p-phenylene vinylene)s, poly(pyrrole)s, polycarbazoles, polyindoles, polyazepines, polyanilines (corresponding to the nitrogen containing aromatic polymer), poly(thiophene)s, poly(p-phenylene sulfide)s, poly(fluorene)s, polyphenylenes, polypyrenes, polyazulenes, polynaphthalenes, or combinations thereof (paragraphs 0005-0022). Harry et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the polymer is a copolymer.
Deng et al. disclose an all-solid polymer electrolyte and a method for forming the all-solid polymer electrolyte wherein the method of the all-solid state polymer electrolyte comprises the following steps: 2-phenylterephthaloyl chloride, 2-phenyl-p phenylenediamine and polyethylene glycol were dissolved in NMP and dried, calcium chloride was added, triethylamine was added and reacted at room temperature under nitrogen protection. Deng et al. disclose wherein the reaction mixture solution was cooled to room temperature and then the tricthylamine hydrochloride was filtered off and the product was precipitated by adding ethanol and suction filtered under reduced pressure and the product washed with ethanol and dried under vacuum to obtain the peraramid/PEG multi-block polymer. Deng et al. further disclose wherein the obtained multi-block polymer was dissolved with anhydrous NMP to obtain a homogeneous polymer solution, and then LiTFSI was added and dissolved with stirring at normal temperature to obtain a homogeneous mixed solution and uniformly cast into a polytetrafluoroethylene mold and dried under vacuum after slow volatilization of the solvent at room temperature (paragraphs 0055-0069, 0104-0109; See Example 6). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the solid state electrolyte of Harry et al. to include the polymer as a copolymer, because Deng et al. teach that the copolymer has high mechanical properties, effectively suppresses the growth of dendrites, improves interface stability and long-cycle performance, and has excellent safety performance (paragraph 0025).
With regard to Claim 2, Deng et al. disclose wherein the nitrogen containing aromatic copolymer is comprised by a first polymer and a second polymer, the first polymer is an aromatic polyamide, the second polymer is selected from a group consisting of polyethylene glycol and PAN (paragraph 0066).
With regard to Claims 3 and 7, Deng et al. disclose wherein the aromatic polyamide is PPTA formed by polymerization of p-phenylenediamine and terephthaloyl chloride (paragraphs 0104-0109; See Example 6).
With regard to Claim 4, Deng et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the molecular weight percentage of the aromatic polyamide in the nitrogen containing aromatic copolymer is from 10% to 90%, or 20%~80%, or 30%~60%, or 30%~50%. The specific molecular weight percentage of the aromatic polyamide in the nitrogen containing aromatic copolymer is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. The stability and cost of are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said molecular weight percentage of the aromatic polyamide in the nitrogen containing aromatic copolymer, with the stability and manufacturing cost both increasing as the molecular weight percentage of the aromatic polyamide in the nitrogen containing aromatic copolymer is increased, the precise molecular weight percentage of the aromatic polyamide would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the molecular weight percentage of the aromatic polyamide in the nitrogen containing aromatic copolymer of Deng et al. to obtain the desired balance between the stability and cost of manufacturing (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
With regard to Claim 5, Deng et al. disclose wherein the nitrogen containing aromatic copolymer is a block copolymer (paragraph 0108).
With regard to Claims 6 and 17, Deng et al. disclose wherein the aromatic polyamide is formed by polymerization of diamine and acyl chloride, wherein the diamine is phenylenediamine, and the acyl chloride is benzoyl chloride (paragraphs 0044, 0046, 0107-0108).
With regard to Claim 8, Deng et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the Rg of the nitrogen containing aromatic copolymer in a solvent is in a range of 1-100nm or 5-50nm. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the Rg of the nitrogen containing aromatic copolymer in a solvent is in a range of 1-100nm or 5-50nm, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
With regard to Claim 9, Harry et al. disclose wherein the ceramic powder is selected from a group consisting of garnet ceramics, perovskite-type ceramics, LISICON-type ceramics (paragraph 0006).
With regard to Claim 10, Harry et al. disclose an average particle size of the ceramic powder in the range of 10nm-100µm (paragraph 0041), which meets the claimed limitation of in a range of 10~10000nm or 50~1000nm.
With regard to Claims 11 and 19, Deng et al. disclose wherein the solid state electrolyte also comprises conducting salt, wherein the conducting salt is selected from a group consisting of lithium perchlorate, lithium hexafluorophosphate, lithium oxalate borate, lithium hexafluoroarsenate, lithium tetrafluoroborate, lithium trifluoromethanesulfonate, and lithium difluoromethanesulfonylimide, meeting the claimed limitation of LiClO4 and LiPF6 (paragraph 0064) and LiTFSI (paragraph 0103).
With regard to Claim 12, Deng et al. disclose wherein a weight percentage ratio between the conducting salt and the nitrogen containing aromatic copolymer is in 5%~80% (paragraph 0042), which meets the claimed limitation of 5%-20%, prefer or 8-15%.
With regard to Claim 13, Deng et al. do not specifically disclose wherein a weight percentage ratio between the nitrogen containing aromatic copolymer and the ceramic powder is in a range of 10%~50%. The specific weight percentage ratio between the nitrogen containing aromatic copolymer and the ceramic powder is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. The stability and cost of are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said weight percentage ratio between the nitrogen containing aromatic copolymer and the ceramic powder, with the stability and manufacturing cost both increasing as the weight percentage ratio between the nitrogen containing aromatic copolymer and the ceramic powder is increased, the precise weight percentage ratio between the nitrogen containing aromatic copolymer and the ceramic powder would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the weight percentage ratio between the nitrogen containing aromatic copolymer and the ceramic powder of Harry et al. to obtain the desired balance between the stability and cost of manufacturing (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
With regard to Claim 14, Harry et al. disclose a lithium-ion battery, wherein the lithium-ion battery comprises the solid state electrolyte noted above (paragraph 0054).
With regard to Claim 15, neither Harry et al. nor Deng et al. disclose wherein the solid state electrolyte is 500 nm to 50 µm in thickness, or 5 to 20 µm in thickness. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the solid state electrolyte to have a thickness of 500 nm to 50 µm, or 5 to 20 µm, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
With regard to Claim 16, Harry et al. disclose a lithium-ion battery, wherein the lithium-ion battery comprises a cathode electrode and an anode electrode, the cathode electrode or/and the anode electrode comprise(s) the material of the solid state electrolyte noted above (paragraphs 0016-0022, 0062-0063).
With regard to Claim 18, Deng et al. disclose wherein the anhydrous organic solvent is any one of tetrahydrofuran, chloroform, and N methylpyrrolidone (paragraph 0057), which meets the claimed limitation of the solvent is selected from a group consisting of DMAc, DMF and NMP.
With regard to Claim 20, Harry et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the material of the solid state electrolyte is less than 50 weight% in the cathode electrode, or less than 30 weight% therein and/or the material of the solid state electrolyte is less than 20 weight% in the anode electrode, or less than 10 weight%. The specific weight percentage of the solid state electrolyte is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. The stability and cost of are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said weight percentage of the solid state electrolyte, with the stability and manufacturing cost both increasing as the weight percentage of the solid state electrolyte is increased, the precise weight percentage of the solid state electrolyte would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the weight percentage of the solid state electrolyte of Harry et al. to obtain the desired balance between the stability and cost of manufacturing (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIE O APICELLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 5:00PM EST.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/KARIE O'NEILL APICELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725