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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-14) in the reply filed on 1/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that that the claimed inventions are not independent or patentably distinct. This is not found persuasive because:
Regarding Group I and II, applicants argues that the combination (Group II) requires the particulars of the subcombination (Group I) because the battery claims recite the composition of claim 1. This is not persuasive. MPEP 806.05(c) states that restriction is proper if the combination does not require the particulars of the subcombination for patentability.
Claims 15–30 (Group II) are directed to a solid-state metal-ion battery broadly recited in terms of structural components (anode, cathode, electrolyte) and their functional arrangement. The inventive concept of Group II resides in this battery architecture, not solely in the specific chemical formula of the electrolyte. The battery claims could employ other ion-conductive compositions performing the same function while maintaining the same battery structure. Therefore, the patentability of the battery combination does not depend exclusively on the specific electrolyte chemistry of Group I. Furthermore, the subcombination of Group I has separate utility outside of the specific battery claimed in Group II (e.g., as a standalone conductive additive or coating), as disclosed in the specification (see [0095]–[0102]), and is therefore distinct from the combination under MPEP §806.05(c).
Regarding Group I vs Group III Claims 31–47 (Group III) are directed specifically to lithium-ion batteries employing Li-specific electrolytes and electrode materials (e.g., LiPON, LLZO, LGPS). In contrast, Group I is directed to a generic metal-ion conductive composition applicable to alkali, alkaline-earth, Zn, and Al ion systems. These inventions are mutually exclusive in chemical identity and mode of operation (monovalent Li-ion vs. multivalent or generic metal-ion transport) and cannot be used together without fundamental redesign. As such, the inventions are not obvious variants and are properly restricted as related products under MPEP §806.05(j).
Search Burden Examination of the distinct inventions would require separate searches in different fields (different CPC classifications for Li-specific chemistries vs. generic metal-ion structures), involving materially different prior art and patentability considerations. Accordingly, a serious search and examination burden would exist if restriction were not required.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/2/23 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 5/2/23. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Wang”) in view of Chao Chen et al. (“Chen”).
As to Claim 1:
Wang discloses:
a metal ion conductive composition suitable for use in solid-state batteries (Wang, Title: “High-Performance Solid Composite Polymer Electrolyte for All-Solid-State Lithium Battery”; Abstract);
an intimate mixture of at least one metal ion salt, specifically lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI), with a polymer electrolyte matrix (Wang, p. 2, Preparation of CPEs, lines 1–10);
dissolving polyethylene oxide (PEO) and LiTFSI in acetonitrile to form a homogeneous solution, followed by solvent removal and film casting, thereby yielding a solid composite in which the lithium salt is intimately dispersed within the polymer matrix. Lithium is an alkali metal ion, as recited in claim 1 (Wang, p. 2, Preparation of CPEs).; and
the inclusion of a plurality of inorganic particles within the metal-ion-conductive composition, specifically graphitic carbon nitride (g-C₃N₄) nanosheets, which are incorporated as particulate fillers into the electrolyte to improve ionic conductivity and mechanical stability (Wang, p. 2, Preparation of CPEs).
However, while Wang teaches a metal-ion-conductive composition comprising an intimate mixture of a metal ion salt and inorganic particulate fillers, Wang does not disclose that the plurality of particles has the specific composition Fe(1-a)MₐO(1-z)YzX, wherein X is a halide, nor does Wang disclose such particles having a size of 500 nm or less.
Chen teaches iron oxyhalide materials and explicitly discloses FeOCl (iron oxychloride) particles used in solid-state battery systems (Chen, Abstract; p. 2, right column, lines 10–15). FeOCl corresponds to the claimed formula Fe(1-a)MₐO(1-z)YzX when a = 0 (no cation substitution), z = 0 (no Y-anion substitution), and X = Cl, where chlorine is a halide selected from F, Cl, Br, and I as recited in claim 1. When z = 0, the compound contains no Y anion, which is expressly permitted by the claimed range of z from 0 to 0.75.
Chen further discloses that the FeOCl particles are nanocrystalline, with grain sizes refined to less than 10 nm upon cycling (Chen, p. 2, right column, last paragraph; p. 3, Fig. 2), which satisfies the claimed limitation that the particle size is 500 nm or less.
Wang and Chen are analogous art, as both references relate to solid-state battery materials and address the incorporation of inorganic particulate phases into electrochemically functional solid-state systems to improve ionic transport and electrochemical performance. Wang teaches that layered or nanoscale inorganic fillers dispersed within a polymer electrolyte matrix enhance ionic conductivity and structural integrity, while Chen teaches that FeOCl is a chemically stable, layered, nanoscale inorganic material suitable for solid-state battery environments.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the metal-ion-conductive composition of Wang by substituting the g-C₃N₄ filler particles with the FeOCl particles taught by Chen. Such a substitution represents a predictable use of a known layered inorganic material in place of another inorganic filler to achieve similar improvements in solid-state electrolyte performance. Chen teaches that FeOCl possesses a layered structure and nanoscale particle size advantageous for ion transport, while Wang teaches that incorporating layered inorganic particles into a polymer–metal-salt matrix improves ionic conductivity and mechanical properties. Accordingly, the combined teachings of Wang and Chen render the subject matter of claim 1 obvious.
As to Claim 2:
Wang discloses the metal ion conductive composition of claim 1 (as set forth in the rejection of claim 1), wherein the composition comprises at least one metal ion salt (Wang, Page 2, "Preparation of CPEs," using LiTFSI).
However, Wang does not expressly disclose that the anion component of the metal ion salt is selected from the group consisting of F-, Cl-, Br-, I-, ClO4-, BF6- [sic] and PF6-. Wang utilizes the TFSI- anion.
Chen teaches an all-solid-state battery system utilizing chloride ion conduction and explicitly discloses the use of a salt comprising a Chloride (Cl-) anion (Chen, Page 1, Abstract; Page 3, left column, describing Tributylmethylammonium chloride). The Chloride anion (Cl-) is a member of the claimed group.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the metal ion conductive composition of Wang to utilize a metal ion salt having a Chloride (Cl-) anion (such as Lithium Chloride) or a Perchlorate (ClO4-) anion (a known alternative for PEO-based electrolytes), as suggested by the anion chemistry taught by Chen. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to select a salt anion compatible with the FeOCl active particles of Chen (which operate via chloride shuttling) to ensure chemical compatibility and stability within the composite cathode.
As to Claim 3:
Wang discloses the metal ion conductive composition of claim 1 (as set forth in the rejection of claim 1), further comprising a polymer electrolyte (Wang, Title: “High-Performance Solid Composite Polymer Electrolyte for all Solid-State Lithium Battery”; Abstract; Page 2, “Preparation of CPEs,” lines 1–5). Specifically, Wang teaches mixing poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO), which is a known polymer electrolyte, with a lithium salt to form the solid electrolyte matrix.
However, Wang does not expressly disclose the specific FeOCl particles recited in the base claim 1, which are taught by Chen as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Chen teaches the use of FeOCl particles as active materials in solid-state battery systems (Chen, Abstract) and further discloses that these particles are used in conjunction with electrolyte layers (Chen, Page 2, right column).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to employ the metal ion conductive composition of Wang, which explicitly comprises a polymer electrolyte (PEO), in combination with the FeOCl particles of Chen, as the use of polymer electrolytes is a well-known method for creating flexible and conductive solid-state battery components.
As to Claim 4:
Wang discloses the metal ion conductive composition of claim 1 (as set forth in the rejection of claim 1), comprising an intimate mixture of a metal ion salt and a plurality of inorganic particles dispersed within a polymer electrolyte matrix (Wang, Page 2, “Preparation of CPEs,” describing mixing PEO, LiTFSI, and inorganic filler particles to form a homogeneous composite electrolyte film).
However, Wang does not expressly disclose that a mole ratio of the metal ion salt to the inorganic particles is from 1/10 to 1/1. In Wang’s exemplary embodiments, the inorganic particles are primarily described as fillers added in modest amounts to enhance ionic conductivity and mechanical properties, without an explicit disclosure of a salt-to-particle mole ratio within the claimed range.
Chen teaches the use of FeOCl particles as a major component in a solid-state composite layer. Specifically, Chen discloses preparing a composite electrode comprising a high loading of FeOCl particles (e.g., 60 wt% FeOCl active material) in combination with ion-conductive components to form a functional solid-state electrochemical layer (Chen, Page 3, left column, “Electrochemical Measurements”). Given the molecular weight of FeOCl (approximately 106 g/mol) and the relatively small molar contribution of the salt component used to provide ionic conduction within the composite, Chen’s disclosure necessarily corresponds to a salt-to-particle mole ratio of less than 1, which falls within the claimed range of 1/10 to 1/1.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the metal ion conductive composition of Wang to employ a salt-to-particle mole ratio from 1/10 to 1/1, as taught by Chen. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to adjust the relative amounts of the metal ion salt and FeOCl particles as a matter of routine optimization in order to increase the proportion of electrochemically active material while maintaining sufficient ionic conductivity. Such optimization of component ratios in solid-state composite battery materials is a well-recognized and predictable design consideration, and would have resulted in a composition meeting the limitations of claim 4.
As to Claim 7:
Wang discloses the metal ion conductive composition of claim 3 (as set forth in the rejection of claim 3), comprising a polymer electrolyte which is at least one selected from the group consisting of a poly(ethylene oxide) (Wang, Abstract; Page 2, “Preparation of CPEs,” lines 1–3, explicitly disclosing the use of “Poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO)” as the host polymer for the electrolyte composition).
However, Wang does not expressly disclose the specific FeOCl particles recited in the base claim 1, which are taught by Chen as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Chen teaches the use of FeOCl particles as active materials in solid-state battery systems and further discloses the use of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) (another member of the claimed Markush group) as a polymer binder component in the composition (Chen, Page 3, left column, “Electrochemical Measurements,” describing the cathode slurry prepared by mixing FeOCl active mass with PVDF).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to employ the poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO) disclosed by Wang as the polymer electrolyte in the metal ion conductive composition containing the FeOCl particles of Chen. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize PEO because Wang teaches that PEO is a standard, effective solid polymer electrolyte matrix that facilitates ion transport and provides mechanical flexibility when combined with inorganic salts and particles.
As to Claim 8:
Wang discloses the metal ion conductive composition of claim 7 (as set forth in the rejection of claim 7), which includes a PEO polymer electrolyte (Wang, Page 2, “Preparation of CPEs”). Wang further discloses preparing an intimate mixture of the metal ion salt and inorganic particles (fillers) within the polymer matrix, explicitly teaching filler concentrations ranging from 1 wt% to 10 wt% relative to the PEO mass (Wang, Page 2, “Preparation of CPEs,” lines 10–15; Figure 1 captions).
However, Wang does not explicitly disclose utilizing the specific FeOCl particles recited in Claim 1, nor does it expressly calculate the volume percentage of the specific mixture of salt and FeOCl particles.
Chen teaches the use of FeOCl particles as the active material in a solid-state composite electrode and explicitly discloses a composition where the FeOCl particles constitute 60 wt% of the mixture (Chen, Page 3, left column, “Electrochemical Measurements”). A loading of 60 wt% (from Chen) or even the 1–10 wt% filler loading (from Wang), when combined with the necessary metal ion salt, corresponds to a volume fraction significantly exceeding the minimal threshold of 1% by volume.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to formulate the metal ion conductive composition of Wang (incorporating the FeOCl particles of Chen) such that the intimate mixture of salt and particles constitutes 1% by volume or more of the composition. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to use particle loadings well above 1% (such as the 60 wt% taught by Chen) to ensure sufficient active material capacity and ionic connectivity within the composite, thereby inherently satisfying the claimed range.
As to Claim 9:
Wang discloses the metal ion conductive composition of claim 1 (as set forth in the rejection of claim 1) and further discloses the use of a solvent to prepare the intimate mixture of the salt and polymer matrix (Wang, Page 2, “Preparation of CPEs,” lines 1–5, disclosing the dissolution of PEO and LiTFSI in acetonitrile).
However, Wang uses acetonitrile, which is not a member of the solvent group consisting of acetone, methanol, ethanol, propanol, isopropanol, methyl ethyl ketone and water.
Chen teaches the fabrication of the electrode composition containing the FeOCl particles and explicitly discloses the use of ethanol as the solvent for preparing the mixture (Chen, Page 3, left column, “Electrochemical Measurements”). Specifically, Chen states: “The cathode slurry was prepared by mixing FeOCl active mass... Super P... and PVDF... in ethanol.” Ethanol is a member of the claimed group. The limitation “up to 15 wt%” encompasses amounts of residual solvent remaining after drying or the solvent content during the processing stage, as taught by the use of ethanol in the slurry preparation.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the preparation method of Wang to utilize ethanol as a solvent (or co-solvent), as taught by Chen. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to use ethanol because Chen explicitly teaches that ethanol is an effective medium for dispersing the FeOCl particles and PVDF binder to form a homogeneous composite mixture, and ethanol is a standard, low-toxicity solvent widely used in battery electrode processing to ensure proper particle distribution before casting and drying.
As to Claim 11:
Wang discloses the metal ion conductive composition of claim 1 (as set forth in the rejection of claim 1), comprising a polymer electrolyte and a metal ion salt (Wang, Abstract; Page 2).
However, Wang does not expressly disclose the specific FeOCl particles recited in the base claim 1, nor does it disclose the specific stoichiometric value where a is 0 (indicating no cation substitution).
Chen teaches the use of FeOCl (Iron Oxychloride) particles as active materials in solid-state battery systems (Chen, Abstract). In the chemical formula Fe(1-a)MₐO(1-z)YzX, the compound FeOCl corresponds to the case where the cation is exclusively Iron (Fe). Since there is no secondary cation M substituting the Iron, the variable a is 0. Chen explicitly utilizes this unsubstituted FeOCl phase (Chen, Page 2, right column).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to employ the FeOCl particles of Chen in the composition of Wang, wherein a is 0, as taught by Chen. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to use the pure, unsubstituted FeOCl phase because Chen teaches that this specific material exhibits the desired electrochemical activity and layered structure for chloride ion intercalation without requiring complex cation doping.
As to Claim 12:
Wang discloses the metal ion conductive composition of claim 1.
However, Wang does not expressly disclose the FeOCl particles wherein z is 0.
Chen teaches the use of FeOCl particles (Chen, Abstract). In the chemical formula, the anion consists of Oxygen (O) and Chloride (Cl). There is no secondary anion Y (such as N, S, or Se) substituting the Oxygen. Therefore, the variable z is 0. Chen explicitly utilizes this unsubstituted oxychloride phase.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to employ the FeOCl particles of Chen in the composition of Wang, wherein z is 0, as taught by Chen.
As to Claim 13:
Wang discloses the metal ion conductive composition of claim 1.
However, Wang does not expressly disclose particles wherein a is 0 and z is 0.
Chen teaches the use of FeOCl particles (Chen, Abstract). As discussed in the rejections of Claims 11 and 12, the specific stoichiometry of FeOCl corresponds to a = 0 (no cation substitution) and z = 0 (no anion substitution).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to employ the FeOCl particles of Chen in the composition of Wang, wherein a is 0 and z is 0, because Chen demonstrates the utility of this specific, unsubstituted stoichiometric phase.
As to Claim 14:
Wang discloses the metal ion conductive composition of claim 1.
However, Wang does not expressly disclose particles wherein a is 0, z is 0, and X is Cl.
Chen teaches the use of FeOCl particles (Chen, Abstract). As discussed above, the stoichiometry of FeOCl corresponds to a = 0 and z = 0. Furthermore, the halide component of FeOCl is Chloride, which corresponds to X is Cl. Chen explicitly identifies the material as “iron oxychloride” (Chen, Page 2).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to employ the FeOCl particles of Chen in the composition of Wang, wherein a is 0, z is 0, and X is Cl, as taught by Chen.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Wang”) in view of Chao Chen et al. (“Chao Chen”), as applied to Claim 3 above, and further in view of L. Chen et al. (“Chen-2”).
As to Claim 5:Wang discloses the metal ion conductive composition of claim 3, comprising a polymer electrolyte (Wang, Abstract; Page 2, “Preparation of CPEs,” disclosing a PEO-based solid electrolyte). Claim 3 recites a composition comprising either a polymer electrolyte or a ceramic electrolyte.
However, Wang does not expressly disclose that the composition comprises a ceramic electrolyte selected from the group consisting of a γ-LiPO₄ oxy salt, a NASICON phosphate, a perovskite oxide, and a garnet oxide. Wang instead discloses the use of graphitic carbon nitride (g-C₃N₄) nanosheets as fillers, which are not ceramic electrolytes within the meaning of claim 5.
Chen-2 teaches composite polymer electrolytes for solid-state lithium batteries and explicitly discloses a PEO-based electrolyte comprising a garnet oxide ceramic electrolyte (Chen-2, Title; Abstract). In particular, Chen-2 discloses incorporating Li₇La₃Zr₂O₁₂ (LLZO) particles into a PEO matrix and identifies LLZO as a garnet-type ceramic electrolyte (Chen-2, Page 177, left column).
Wang and Chen-2 are analogous art because both references are directed to PEO-based solid composite electrolytes for lithium batteries and address improving ionic conductivity and electrochemical stability through the selection of inorganic electrolyte components.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the metal ion conductive composition of Wang to comprise a garnet oxide ceramic electrolyte, such as LLZO, as taught by Chen-2. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to select a garnet ceramic electrolyte in place of the inert fillers of Wang because Chen-2 teaches that garnet oxides exhibit high ionic conductivity and excellent electrochemical stability, making them suitable ceramic electrolytes for solid-state battery compositions.
As to Claim 6:As set forth in the rejection of claim 5, the combination of Wang, Chen, and Chen-2 teaches a metal ion conductive composition comprising a polymer electrolyte (Wang), FeOCl particles (Chen), and a garnet oxide ceramic electrolyte (Chen-2).
Wang does not expressly disclose that the content of the intimate mixture of the metal ion salt and the FeOCl particles is 30% by volume or more of the composition. Wang generally employs lower inorganic loadings suitable for separator-type electrolyte layers.
Chen teaches the preparation of solid-state composite layers containing a high loading of FeOCl particles. In particular, Chen discloses composite formulations in which FeOCl constitutes a majority fraction of the solid material (e.g., 60 wt% FeOCl) in a solid-state battery component (Chen, Page 3, left column, “Electrochemical Measurements”). Given the relatively high density of FeOCl (approximately 3–4 g/cm³) compared to polymeric binders and conductive additives, such a formulation necessarily corresponds to a volume fraction of FeOCl exceeding 30% of the solid composite material.
Chen and Wang are analogous art because both references relate to the formulation of solid-state composite battery materials comprising ion-conductive components and inorganic particles.It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to formulate the metal ion conductive composition of Wang, as modified by the FeOCl particles of Chen and the garnet oxide ceramic electrolyte of Chen-2, such that the intimate mixture of the metal ion salt and FeOCl particles constitutes 30% by volume or more of the composition. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to increase the inorganic particle loading as a matter of routine optimization in solid-state composite battery materials to enhance electrochemical functionality while maintaining ionic conduction through the polymer/ceramic matrix.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Wang”) in view of Chao Chen et al. (“Chao Chen”), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5,753,388 A (“US’388”).
As to Claim 10:
Wang discloses the metal ion conductive composition of claim 1, comprising a polymer electrolyte matrix and at least one metal ion salt suitable for ion transport in solid-state battery systems (Wang, Abstract; Page 2, “Preparation of CPEs”). Wang therefore establishes a metal-ion conductive composite environment into which inorganic electrochemically active particles may be incorporated.
However, Wang does not expressly disclose that the plurality of particles comprises iron oxyhalide particles of the formula Fe(1-a)MaO(1-z)YzX, nor does Wang expressly disclose that the cation M is selected from the group consisting of H, Mg, Ca, Al, Ga, In, Se, Y, La, Ti, Zr, Hf, V, Nb, Ta, Cr, Mo, and W, as recited in claim 10.
Chao Chen teaches the use of FeOCl (iron oxychloride) particles as electrochemically active materials in solid-state battery systems (Chao Chen, Abstract; Page 2). FeOCl corresponds to the claimed particle structure Fe(1-a)MaO(1-z)YzX when a = 0, z = 0, and X = Cl, thereby providing an explicit baseline iron oxyhalide particle framework for the claimed composition.
US’388 teaches that iron oxyhalides and related transition-metal-based intercalation compounds may be selected or modified by incorporating alternative transition-metal cations including vanadium (V), titanium (Ti), chromium (Cr), molybdenum (Mo), niobium (Nb), and tantalum (Ta) for use in electrochemical energy-storage materials (US’388 lists FeOCl, V-, Ti-, Cr-, and Mo-containing compounds, and “mixtures or variations thereof”, Page 7, lines 39-43). US’388 thus expressly teaches that these cations are chemically compatible substitutes or alternatives within the same class of electrochemically active layered materials used for ion-intercalation reactions.
Taken together, Chao Chen establishes iron oxyhalide particles as suitable layered active materials, while US’388 teaches that transition-metal cations selected from V, Ti, Cr, Mo, Nb, and Ta are recognized alternatives within the same class of electrochemical materials and may be employed to tune electrochemical properties such as voltage profile, stability, and capacity. These cations are explicitly members of the Markush group recited for M in claim 10.
Wang, Chao Chen, and US’388 are analogous art because all three references are directed to the design and optimization of solid-state battery materials and compositions, particularly composite systems combining polymer electrolytes, metal salts, and layered inorganic electrochemically active particles.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the metal ion conductive composition of Wang by incorporating iron oxyhalide particles as taught by Chao Chen, and to further select the cation M from among the alternative transition-metal cations taught by US’388 (such as V, Ti, Cr, Mo, Nb, or Ta) as predictable compositional variants within the same family of electrochemically active materials. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to make such a selection in order to optimize electrochemical performance parameters—such as redox potential, structural stability, and cycling behavior—using known, chemically compatible cations routinely employed in layered intercalation materials, thereby arriving at a composition within the scope of claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 4303748 explicitly discloses Solid Polymer Electrolytes (macromolecular materials) containing alkali salts (M+X-).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY K VO whose telephone number is (571)272-3242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am to 6 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, 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.
/JIMMY VO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/JIMMY VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723