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/Restriction
Applicant’s election of Group I, claim(s) 1–17, in the reply filed on 03/02/26 is acknowledged. Claim(s) 18–25 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in Table 4 (p. 21), although the column “GN/PEG” appears to reflect a ratio of GN to PEG, the values in the column actually reflect the products of the GN and PEG masses and should be changed to quotients. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites “the PEG has a molecular weight of 200 to 10,000, 200 to 400, or 4000 to 10,000” (lines 1 and 2). The unit of MW (e.g., g/mol, Da, or kDA) is omitted, rendering the intended scope unclear.
The specification omits a special definition of “molecular weight”, so the term is afforded its plain meaning in light of the specification. P. 10, lines 4–7, describe that the PEG may have the above MW in g/mol, though such is exemplary (p. 10, line 3) and, thus, non-limiting to the MW’s unit. Thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation, for this Office Action claim 15 will be interpreted to require PEG (if selected from parent claim 14’s Markush group) with MW within at least one of the above ranges in units of g/mol, Da, or kDa, consistent with p. 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 109546207 A) (Li).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 7, and 11, Li discloses a composite solid electrolyte for lithium batteries (Abstract, Title), comprising (per Ex. 3, ¶ 0071/0072) a solid polymer (PEO); phyllosilicate nanoparticles distributed in the solid polymer (nano-montmorillonite—which, per instant claim 7, is a phyllosilicate; see also ¶ 0012); a lithium salt distributed in the solid polymer (LiTFSI); and a plasticizer distributed in the solid polymer (ethylene carbonate).
It is submitted that the above disclosure of Ex. 3 further reads on the following:
(claim 2) the solid polymer comprises PEO;
(claim 7) the phyllosilicate nanoparticles comprise montmorillonite;
(claim 11) the lithium salt is LiTFSI.
Regarding claim 4, Li discloses the composite solid electrolyte of claim 1, wherein the composite solid electrolyte is formed as a thin film having a thickness of 20–180 μm (¶ 0028), falling within 1–300 μm.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 109546207 A) (Li), as applied to claim 1, as evidenced by Montmorillonite Mineral Data.
Regarding claim 6, Li discloses the composite solid electrolyte of claim 1, wherein the phyllosilicate nanoparticles comprise an aluminum-based and magnesium-based phyllosilicate (as evidenced by formula at top of p. 1 of Montmorillonite Mineral Data).
Claim(s) 1, 5–8, and 10–13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (WO 2022261785 A1, EFD 06/18/21; citation to English equivalent US 20240291020 A1) (Zhang).
Regarding claims 1, 5–8, and 11, Zhang discloses a composite solid electrolyte for lithium batteries (Abstract and exs.), comprising (per Ex. 1(c)/3, ¶ 0116 and Table 2) a solid polymer (polymer from US ‘674 (US 7,897,674, incorporated by reference in ¶ 0113), which is ultimately cured and, thus, solidified); phyllosilicate nanoparticles distributed in the solid polymer (halloysite nanotubes (HNTs)); a lithium salt distributed in the solid polymer (LiTFSI); and a plasticizer distributed in the solid polymer (tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether (TEGDME); see also ¶ 0033).
It is submitted that the above disclosure further reads on the following:
(claims 5–8) the phyllosilicate nanoparticles are in a form of nanotubes, comprise an aluminum-based phyllosilicate, and comprise bilayer halloysite nanotubes (above HNTs, which, per spec.’s p. 12, are bilayered and aluminosilicates);
(claim 11) the lithium salt is LiTFSI.
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses the composite solid electrolyte of claim 1, wherein the composite solid electrolyte has a lithium ionic conductivity of 0.264 E-4 S/cm at 25°C (Table 2, Ex. 3), falling within at least 10-4 S cm-1 at 25 °C.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Zhang discloses the composite solid electrolyte of claim 1, wherein the phyllosilicate nanoparticles are present in an amount of 10 wt% with respect to a total weight of the composite solid electrolyte (Table 2, Ex. 3), satisfying 1–30 wt%, and a total amount of plasticizer in the composite solid electrolyte with respect to a total weight of the composite solid electrolyte is 27 wt% (Id.), satisfying 4–50 wt%.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Li et al. (CN 109546207 A) (Li), as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Li discloses the composite solid electrolyte of claim 1 but is silent to the electrolyte’s ionic conductivity and, thus, to a lithium ionic conductivity of at least 10-4 S cm-1 at 25 °C.
However, because Li discloses the recited electrolyte, as well as a substantially similar preparation method (simple mixing, coating, and drying, e.g., ¶ 0071/0072) compared to the instant specification (e.g., p. 19, lines 11–18), it is submitted that the electrolyte’s Li+ conductivity would necessarily be ≥ 10-4 S cm-1 at 25 °C, absent evidence otherwise (MPEP 2112.01 (I)).
Assuming, arguendo, that Li’s disclosure failed to anticipate the recited conductivity range, based on the above rationale—and considering that Li is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely phyllosilicate-containing solid electrolytes—the skilled artisan, before the claimed invention’s effective filing date, would have reasonably expected Li’s conductivity to at least overlap the recited range (MPEP 2112.01 (I)) such that the artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful electrolyte with suitable ion conductivity (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (WO 2022261785 A1; citation to English equivalent US 20240291020 A1) (Zhang), as applied to claim 1, in view of Miller et al. (WO 2019226674 A1) (Miller).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Zhang discloses the composite solid electrolyte of claim 1.
Zhang further discloses that the solid polymer may be a cross-linked aprotic polymer and/or branched polymer and may comprise ion-conducting segments such as polyether (¶ 0020), but Zhang fails to explicitly disclose that the solid polymer comprises polyethylene oxide (PEO), and a molar ratio of ethylene oxide units to lithium ions (EO:Li) in the composite solid electrolyte is from 8:1 to 25:1.
Miller teaches a composite solid electrolyte including inorganic particles as well as HNTs and a LiTFSI salt (Abstract; p. 12, lines 15–31), where the solid polymer may be PEO (p. 12, line 12). Miller teaches that the ethylene oxide units of PEO have an abundance of lone-pair electrons that can interact with Li+ on the HNTs’ surfaces to significantly shorten the distance of Li+ transfer (p. 12, lines 25–29). Miller further teaches that the ratio of polymer to Li salt can affect the electrolyte’s properties and teaches a suitable molar ratio of EO:Li of 8:1 to 25:1 (p. 14, lines 16–21).
Miller and Zhang are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely solid polymer electrolytes with inorganic particles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate PEO into or as Zhang’s solid polymer at a molar ratio of EO:Li of 8:1 to 25:1 with the reasonable expectation of achieving a suitable electrolyte with significantly shortened Li+ transfer distance, as taught by Miller.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (WO 2022261785 A1; citation to English equivalent US 20240291020 A1) (Zhang), as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Zhang discloses the composite solid electrolyte of claim 1.
In a separate embodiment Zhang exemplifies a solid electrolyte formed as a thin film with thickness ~ 40 μm (Ex. 1(d)/4, ¶ 0169) but fails to specify the Ex. 1(c)/3 electrolyte’s thickness and, thus, a thin film having a thickness of 1–300 μm.
Zhang is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely phyllosilicate-containing solid electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Zhang's Ex. 3 electrolyte, in being a film (¶ 0116), must necessarily be incorporated with some thickness, and, as demonstrated by Zhang’s Ex. 4, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to employ a thickness of 40 μm as a suitable thickness, which satisfies a thin film with thickness of 1–300 μm.
Additionally, the skilled artisan would recognize that the film must be thick enough to provide the desired ion conductivity and interfacial stability with the electrodes (¶ 0007, 0008), while making the film too thick would necessarily increase ion-diffusion distance and, thus, resistance, as well as reduce energy density by reducing relative electrode active-material volume. To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the film’s thickness (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (WO 2022261785 A1; citation to English equivalent US 20240291020 A1) (Zhang), as applied to claim 1, in view of Zeng et al. (Facile Hydroxylation of Halloysite Nanotubes for Epoxy Nanocomposite Applications) (Zeng).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang discloses the composite solid electrolyte of claim 1.
Zhang desires a mechanically strong composite (¶ 0006) and allows polyether-based polymer as the solid polymer matrix (e.g., ¶ 0020) but fails to explicitly disclose that the phyllosilicate nanoparticles are modified with hydroxylation.
Zeng teaches hydroxylated HNTs for applications in polyether-based matrices (epoxy matrices, Abstract and p. 6520, left col., ¶ 1). Zeng teaches that HNTs tend to cluster during nanocomposite preparation, and the interfacial adhesion between HNTs and some polymer matrices like epoxy—i.e., a polyether similar to Zhang’s polyether-containing polymer discussed above—is suboptimal due to the low concentration of polar functional groups on the HNTs’ surfaces (p. 6520, left col., ¶ 1). Zeng teaches that hydroxylating the HNTs allows them to uniformly disperse in the polymer matrix (Conclusion, p. 6527) as well as improve tensile properties and fracture toughness (p. 6523, right col., 2nd ¶).
Zhang is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely solid polymer electrolytes with phyllosilicate particles. Zeng is analogous because they are reasonably pertinent to a problem the inventor would have faced, namely selecting a phyllosilicate with suitable surface properties for distribution/dispersion in the solid polymer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to hydroxylate Zhang’s HNTs with the reasonable expectation of achieving uniform HNT dispersion and toughening the solid polymer, as taught by Zeng.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (WO 2022261785 A1; citation to English equivalent US 20240291020 A1) (Zhang), as applied to claim 1, in view of Ritchie et al. (US 20220093908 A1) (Ritchie).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Zhang discloses the composite solid electrolyte of claim 1.
Zhang further discloses that the plasticizer improves ion conductivity (¶ 0007), where non-limiting examples of plasticizer include glycols, carbonate esters, ILs, and the like (¶ 0090), and, while further disclosing that nitriles are well known plasticizers (¶ 0007), Zhang fails to disclose a plasticizer of a combination of PEG and glutaronitrile (GN), wherein the PEG has a molecular weight of 200–400.
Ritchie teaches an electrochemical cell with a polymer electrolyte lamination layer (Abstract). Ritchie teaches that the layer includes a plasticizer to assist in ion conduction (¶ 0033), where the plasticizer may be a combination of PEG-200 and GN (¶ 0035).
Ritchie is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely polymer electrolytes with plasticizers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely substitute Zhang’s TEGDME with Ritchie’s plasticizer of, e.g., a combination of PEG-200 and GN with the reasonable expectation of achieving suitable ion conductivity and plasticization, as desired by Zhang (see also MPEP 2143 (B.)).
PEG-200 further reads on claim 15 because the MW of 200—which is understood to be in g/mol or (the equivalent) Da as the conventional notation—falls within 200–400.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (WO 2022261785 A1; citation to English equivalent US 20240291020 A1) (Zhang), as applied to claim 1, in view of Ritchie et al. (US 20220093908 A1) (Ritchie), as applied to claim 14, further in view of Lin et al. (US 20210102063 A1) (Lin) and Mei et al. (CN 111082133 A) (Mei).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, modified Zhang discloses the composite solid electrolyte of claim 14 but fails to specify the concentrations of PEG and GN and, thus, that the PEG is present in an amount of 2–10 wt% and GN is present in an amount of 2–40 wt% with respect to a total weight of the composite solid electrolyte, and a weight ratio of PEG to GN is from 1:20 to 1:4.
Lin teaches a battery including a ceramic-polymer nanocomposite solid state electrolyte (Abstract), where the electrolyte includes a plasticizer such as GN to improve the electrolyte’s ion conductivity at low temperatures (¶ 0013). Meanwhile, Mei teaches that adding PEG as a plasticizer improves the electrical properties and flexibility of solid electrolytes like polyethers (¶ 0016).
Lin and Mei are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely plasticizers in solid polymer electrolytes.
To balance improved ion conductivity at low temperatures with improved electrical properties and flexibility of the solid polymer electrolyte, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited weight ranges by routinely optimizing the PEG:GN ratio in the solid electrolyte, as suggested by Lin and Mei (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Conclusion
The cited art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
KR 20100035221 A: solid polymer electrolyte with nanocomposite of clay such as montmorillonite alongside plasticizer and Li salt.
US 20230015952 A1: aluminosilicate such as mica added to solid polymer electrolyte alongside plasticizer and Li salt, though it is unclear if the aluminosilicate is nanoparticulate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 4/8/2026