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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office Action based on Application 18/287,393 and is in response to Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed 07/28/2026
Claims 1-20 are previously pending, of those claims, claims 16 and 20 have been amended. All amendments have been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CUI (EP 3258532 B1) in view of OGAWA (US 2021/0111430 A1).
With respect to claim 1. CUI teaches an all solid state polymer electrolyte (paragraph 0011). The electrolyte includes a polymer and a sodium or lithium salt (paragraph 0013). The salt is dissolved in the polymer (paragraph 0019). The electrolyte then further includes an additive (paragraph 0030). The additive may be one of aluminum oxide (paragraph 0039). The additive is formed in the polymer electrolyte (paragraph 0031). The electrolyte then has an ionic conductivity of 2x10-5 S/cm – 1x10-3 S/cm (paragraph 0047) with a specific example being 4x10-4 S/cm at 25 degrees C (paragraph 0051).
CUI does not explicitly teach the claimed functional additive.
OGAWA teaches a polymer electrolyte that includes at least one electrolyte salt selected from lithium salts and magnesium salts (paragraph 0013). The magnesium salt may include Mg(Cl04)2 (paragraph 0093). The choice of this magnesium salt would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed as this is a choice from a finite list of elements and would have achieved predictable results. This magnesium salt is the same as from the present application specification, and therefore is taken to have the same properties as claimed, such as the ionic radius (see paragraph 0136 of present applicant specification).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the combination of the salts such as the lithium and magnesium salts of OGAWA for the electrolyte of CUI as this is a combination of known prior art elements and would have achieved predictable results.
With respect to claims 2-3. CUI teaches the additive may be one or more of an inorganic particle such as silicon dioxide, titanium dioxide, and aluminum oxide as examples (paragraph 0031). The mass fraction of the additive in the polymer electrolyte is 0.5-50% (paragraph 0031). This is taken to be an overlapping range with the claimed amount of 0-30 wt%. See MPEP 2144.05(I). 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).
With respect to claim 4. CUI teaches one embodiment the polymer host may be present in an amount of 60-80% and the salt is present in an amount of 15-30% (paragraph 0017). This is taken to be an overlapping range with the claimed amount of the alkali metal salt being present in an amount of 30-80% based on the weight of the polymer host. See MPEP 2144.05(I). 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).
With respect to claim 5. OGAWA teaches the polymer electrolyte composition (abstract). The composition includes at least one electrolyte salt, and includes lithium, sodium, and magnesium salts (paragraph 0089) and therefore is taken to include multiple of the salts. The mass ratio of the electrolyte salt to the mass of the polymer is preferably 0.1 or more and 1 or less (paragraph 0096). The content of the salt then is 3% or more based on the total amount of the composition and less than 30% (paragraph 0097). The amount of the salt is controlled in order to achieve the desired ionic conductivity while controlling the flexibility of the polymer electrolyte. Therefore at the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the amount of the magnesium salt of OGAWA as a matter of routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired ionic conductivity and flexibility of the solid electrolyte.
With respect to claim 7. CUI teaches the lithium salt may include lithium perchlorate as an example (paragraph 0036).
With respect to claims 8 and 10. OGAWA teaches the functional additive may be the magnesium salt Mg(Cl04)2 (paragraph 0093)
With respect to claim 9. CUI does not teach that the magnesium cation from the salt of OGAWA is immobile in the polymer host. However, CUI and OGAWA teaches the same structure as claimed, and therefore it is reasonable that it would also have the same effect, such as of the cation being immobile.
With respect to claim 11. Neither CUI nor OGAWA explicitly teaches the transference number of the alkali metal salt. However as noted above CUI and OGAWA teaches the same solid state ion conducting composite electrolyte, and therefore it is taken to have the same properties thereof.
With respect to claim 12. Neither CUI nor OGAWA teaches the electronic conductivity of the solid state ion conducting composite electrolyte. However, as noted above CUI and OGAWA teaches the same solid state ion conducting composite electrolyte, and therefore is taken to have the same properties thereof.
With respect to claims 13-14. Neither CUI nor OGAWA teaches that the functional additive is configured to interact with the oxygen atoms of the polymer host, and interacts with the anions of the alkali metal salt. However, as noted above CUI and OGAWA teaches the same solid state ion conducting composite electrolyte, and therefore is taken to have the same properties thereof.
With respect to claim 15. CUI teaches the preparation method of forming the polymer electrolyte (paragraph 0050). The preparation method includes dissolving the polymer and the salt in a solution in a homogenous state (paragraph 0051).
With respect to claim 16. OGAWA teaches adjusting the flexibility of the polymer electrolyte sheet (paragraph 0097). Therefore the combination of CUI with OGAWA is taken to form a flexible sheet.
With respect to claim 17. Neither CUI nor OGAWA teaches that that the solid-state ion conducting composite electrolyte when used in an electrochemical cell allows obtaining a dendrite-free critical current density up to about 2 mA/cm2 or up to 5 times higher when compared to a substantially identical reference solid state ion-conducting composite electrolyte in the absence of the functional additive. However, as noted above CUI and OGAWA teaches the same solid state ion conducting composite electrolyte, and therefore is taken to have the same properties thereof.
With respect to claim 18. Neither CUI nor OGAWA teaches that the solid-state ion conducting composite electrolyte when used in an electrochemical cell allows obtaining an areal capacity up to about 0.5 mAh/cm2 or up to 5 times higher when compared to a substantially identical reference solid state ion-conducting composite electrolyte in the absence of the functional additive. However, as noted above CUI and OGAWA teaches the same solid state ion conducting composite electrolyte, and therefore is taken to have the same properties thereof.
With respect to claim 19. Neither CUI nor OGAWA teaches the solid-state ion conducting composite electrolyte is configured to operate in a temperature range of about 20 degrees C up to about 60 degrees C. However, as noted above CUI and OGAWA teaches the same solid state ion conducting composite electrolyte, and therefore is taken to have the same properties thereof.
With respect to claim 20. Neither CUI nor OGAWA teaches the solid-state ion conducting composite electrolyte, when used in an electrochemical cell, allows obtaining a high charge discharge Coulombic efficiency of the electrochemical cell greater than about 99.1% for about 100 cycles. However, as noted above CUI and OGAWA teaches the same solid state ion conducting composite electrolyte, and therefore is taken to have the same properties thereof.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CUI (EP 3258532 B1) in view of OGAWA (US 2021/0111430 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of FASCHING (US 9,112,212 B1).
Claim 6 is dependent upon claim 1 which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of CUI and OGAWA. CUI does not explicitly teach the polymer host includes one of the claimed polymers.
FASCHING teaches forming a solid electrolyte layer which includes solid polymer electrolytes which are ionically conductive (column 19 lines 10-14). The polymers include known polymers of PVDF, PEO, PAN as examples (column 19 lines 15-22).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the polymer of CUI with one of the polymers of FASCHING, as this is a simple substitution of one known prior art element for another in order to achieve predictable results, as FASCHING teaches known ionically conductive polymers for use in solid electrolytes, and therefore the substitution would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 07/28/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection of the lcaims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended claims 16 to overcome the rejection. Applicant argues that the terms substantially identical in claims 17-18 are supported by the specification and was found to be persuasive. Similarly the arguments that claims 17 and 20 have been amended or otherwise argued persuasively.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 07/28/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of TANG and OGAWA have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of CUI and OGAWA.
Applicant’s arguments that TANG teaches a PEO membrane, and then OGAWA teaches that PEO does not teach the ionic conductivity at room temperature, but rather at 60 degrees C. Applicant argues that OGAWA then would not teach the ionic conductivity for the PEO of TANG and that the combination of elements of the ionic conductivity in the tables of OGAWA would not be predictable, and could only be achieved with hindsight. This argument was persuasive, the Examiner agreed that the combination of references does not teach the claimed ionic conductivity of TANG as modified by OGAWA would be in the claimed range, and instead would require improper hindsight, and or teaching away in view of the references. Therefore new grounds of rejection in made in view of CUI.
CUI as noted above teaches The electrolyte then has an ionic conductivity of 2x10-5 S/cm – 1x10-3 S/cm (paragraph 0047) with a specific example being 4x10-4 S/cm at 25 degrees C (paragraph 0051). Therefore CUI would teach the claimed ionic conductivity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN G JELSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-5127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/JONATHAN G JELSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights