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
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 8/5/2026. Claims 18-21 have been added. Claims 1-14 and 15-21 are pending. Claims 15-17 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention, in accordance with 37 CFR 1.142(b). Applicant’s arguments have been considered. Claims 1-13, 18-21 are finally rejected for reasons necessitated by applicant’s amendment.
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.
Claims 1-9, 13, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkel (US 2017/0005367) in view of Tsujii (US 2012/0231346) and Dai (CN 106876801).
Regarding claim 1, solid electrolyte membrane, comprising a sulfide electrolyte material and polymer particles dispersed in the sulfide electrolyte material [0070], wherein
based on a total mass of the sulfide electrolyte material and the polymer particles being 100 parts by mass, the mass of the polymer particles is 1 to 50 parts by mass [0223];
the polymer particles have a size of 1 μm to 500 μm [0248]; and
the solid electrolyte membrane comprises a binder [0014].
Regarding claim 1 limitation, a compacted density is greater than 95%, Berkel discloses that the inorganic solid state electrolyte is sintered or necked. As used herein, sintered means that the inorganic components are denser, more compact, or in greater contact with other inorganic components, than would be the case if the components were not sintered. Sintering of the components can be accomplished by heat treatment, pressure treatment, or both heat and pressure treatment. As used herein, necked means that the inorganic components (e.g., particles) are in contact with other inorganic components by way of, for example, fused sides or edges, bonded sides or edges, or other particle to particle contact. Necked particles can form a network through the composite electrolyte through which Li+ ions can conduct [0196]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to maximize the density of Berkel’s solid electrolyte for the benefit of increasing the contact between adjacent inorganic oxide particles, thereby increasing its ionic conductivity.
Regarding claim 1 a breaking strength is higher than 50 MPa, Berkel discloses that the electrolyte has a fracture strength of greater than 5 MPa and less than 250 MPa [0008]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to form the solid electrolyte of Berkel at an upper end of the fracture strength range for the benefit of avoiding fracture or puncture.
Regarding claim 1 after the polymer particles are compression-molded under conditions of 100 MPa to 500 MPa, Berkel does not use a compression-molded test, but uses a ring-on-ring test that measures equibiaxial flexural strength at ambient temperature [0074]. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to maximize the density and the breaking strength of Berkel’s solid electrolyte for the benefit of forming a mechanically robust electrolyte.
Regarding claim 6, the polymer particles have an aspect ratio within 50 [0248]. Berkel discloses that the polymer particles are spherical particles [0248].
Regarding claim 7, Berkel discloses the polymer particles are selected from one or more of polysaccharide polymers, polyhydrocarbon polymers, rubber polymers, polyamide polymers and polyester polymers [0201].
Regarding claim 8, Berkel discloses the polymer particles contain a polar functional group selected from one or more of a hydroxyl group, a carboxyl group and a cyano group [0202].
Regarding claim 9, Berkel discloses the binder is styrene-butadiene rubber [0069].
Regarding claim 13, Berkel discloses the solid electrolyte membrane has a thickness of 20 μm to 200 μm [0127].
Regarding claim 1, Berkel discloses the polymer particles have a size of 1 μm to 500 μm, but does not disclose no less than 90 wt % of the polymer particles have a size of 1 μm to 500 μm. Regarding claim 2, Berkel does not disclose no less than 35 wt % of the polymer particles have a size of 5 μm to 20 μm. Regarding claim 3, Berkel does not disclose no less than 99 wt % of the polymer particles have a size of 1 μm to 500 μm. Regarding claim 4, Berkel does not disclose no less than 99 wt % of the polymer particles have a size of 5 μm to 20 μm. Regarding claim 5, Berkel does not disclose no more than 90 wt % of the polymer particles have a size of 5 μm to 20 μm. Berkel discloses the polymer includes functional groups (e.g., carboxylate, thiol, hydroxyl) which can react with function groups or with reactive species in or on the electrolyte [0202]. Tsujii teaches a solid polymer electrolyte of fine composite particles. The fine particles can be inorganic or organic substance [0116]. To perform extra-high density graft polymerization on the surfaces of fine particles, it is preferable to use monodisperse fine particles preferably having a diameter of 10 nm to 30 um, more preferably 100 nm to 10 um, further preferably 100 nm to 1 um. Here, "monodisperse fine particles" designates particles with 10% or less variation in particle diameter [0117]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to form the polymer particles of Berkel being monodisperse, as taught by Tsujii, for the benefit of forming extra-high density of graft polymerization of functional groups on Berkel’s polymer to better adhere to the inorganic particles.
Regarding claim 1, Berkel discloses the polymer particles are polysaccharide polymers [0201], but does not disclose as claimed in claim 1 and 9. Berkel discloses the polymer is physically or chemically bonded to the electrolyte. For example, in some embodiments, the polymer includes functional groups (e.g., carboxylate, thiol, hydroxyl) which can react with function groups or with reactive species in or on the electrolyte. For example, the sulfur atoms in a sulfide electrolyte can bond to a thiol group on a polymer to form a bridging S—S bond which adheres the polymer to the sulfide electrolyte's surface [0202]. Dai teaches a colloidal electrolyte comprising xanthan gum crosslinked with sulphuric acid (page 3 of translation). It forms a gel of stable characteristic, safe and dependable (page 4 of translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to chemically bond the hydroxyl group of xanthan gum to Berkel’s electrolyte for the benefit of strongly adhering the polymer to the electrolyte.
Regarding claim 18, the aspect ratio of the polymer particles from 5 to 25, the polymer particles have a degree of polymerization of 1 million to 5 million, and the solid electrolyte membrane has a thickness of 30 µm to 50 µm, Berkel discloses the solid electrolyte membrane has a thickness of 30 µm [0127]. Berkel discloses increasing the polymer content is a processing challenge because the specific polymer of choice may confer a viscosity that is either too high or too low to make the desired film. In some examples, the solid state electrolyte is mechanically mixed with a polymer and then extruded from the mixer to form composite thin films. If the viscosity is too high or too low, the extrusion process can be detrimentally affected. In some examples, the solid state electrolyte and the polymer may phase separate, or the polymer may delaminate from the electrolyte, if the extrusion process is detrimentally affected by a viscosity that is either too high or too low. At the same time, the minimum amount of polymers needed to see any effects on mechanical characteristics may depend on the solid electrolyte particle size, particle shape, and other like factors [0194]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the particle size and shape of Berkel’s polymer for the benefit of adjusting the mixture viscosity. The Examiner notes that the polymer particle aspect ratio and the degree of polymerization are directly related to the polymer particle shape.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkel (US 2017/0005367) in view of Tsujii (US 2012/0231346) and Dai (CN 106876801) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Tanaka (JP 2017-084589).
Regarding claim 10, Berkel does not disclose the polymer particles have a degree of polymerization of 100,000 to 5 million. Tanaka teaches a composite porous membrane comprising a polymer for a lithium ion battery. The polymer has a molecular weight of 300,000 or more, more preferably 400,000 or more, even more preferably 500,000 or more, particularly preferably 800,000 or more, preferably 2,000,000 or less, more preferably 1,800,000 or less, and even more preferably 1,500,000 or less. If the weight-average molecular weight of the polymer is above the lower limit mentioned above, the polymer can be effectively adsorbed onto the non-conductive inorganic particles, thereby suppressing the polymer from penetrating (seeping into) the electrode composite layer. Therefore, it is possible to suppress the increase in the internal resistance of electrodes equipped with porous films formed using a slurry composition for porous films, thereby significantly improving the low-temperature output characteristics of secondary batteries. Furthermore, if the weight-average molecular weight of the polymer is below the above upper limit, it is possible to suppress the gelation of the porous membrane slurry composition and the resulting increase in viscosity, thereby ensuring sufficient coating properties for the porous membrane slurry composition. Page 33 of the translation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust Berkel’s polymer molecular weight, as taught by Tanaka, for the benefit of having good viscosity to mix Berkel’s composition. Berkel discloses the importance of having an appropriate viscosity when mixing the electrolyte composition [0194].
It is noted that the molecular weight is directly related to the degree of polymerization.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkel (US 2017/0005367) in view of Tsujii (US 2012/0231346) and Dai (CN 106876801) as applied to claim 1, further in view Amin-Sanayei (WO 2020/257430).
Regarding claim 11, the sulfide electrolyte material is selected from one or more of Li3PS4, Li7P3S11, Li6PS5Cl and Li10GeP2S12, Berkel discloses a sulfide electrolyte material LiPSCl [0140], but does not disclose one or more of Li3PS4, Li7P3S11, Li6PS5Cl and Li10GeP2S12. Teaches a solid electrolyte having solid conductive particles of Li3PS4 [0026]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to use Amin-Sanayei’s particles of Li3PS4 for Berkel’s inorganic particles since using Li3PS4 particles would also form ion conducting membrane.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkel (US 2017/0005367) in view of Tsujii (US 2012/0231346) and Dai (CN 106876801) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Cho (US 2019/0372149).
Regarding claim 12, Berkel further discloses comprising a binder [0014], but does not disclose wherein based on the total mass of the sulfide electrolyte material and the polymer particles being 100 parts by mass, the mass of the binder is 0.5 to 20 parts by mass. Cho teaches a solid electrolyte membrane having inorganic solid electrolyte particles. The binder resin provides the bond strength between the membrane components in the solid electrolyte membrane. The binder resin may be present in an amount of 1 to 10 weight % in the solid electrolyte membrane and its content may be properly adjusted to 7 weight % or less, 5 weight % or less, and 3 weight % or less [0038]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to add the binder of Berkel in the amount as taught by Cho for the benefit of appropriately binding the inorganic electrolyte to the polymer.
Claims 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkel (US 2017/0005367) in view of Tsujii (US 2012/0231346) and Dai (CN 106876801) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Iwamoto (US 2016/0293958).
Berkel modified by Tsukii and Dai does not teach the sulfide electrolyte material as claimed in claims 19, 20. Berkel discloses a lithium sulfide of Li10Si0.5Sn0.5P2S12 [0147]. Iwamoto teaches a lithium battery having solid electrolyte Li10GeP2S12 [0102]. A solid electrolyte that contains Li2S and P2S5 improves charge or discharge capacity [0101]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to use the solid electrolyte Li10GeP2S12 in the electrolyte of Berkel, as taught by Iwamoto, for the benefit of having good charge or discharge capacity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is Berkel (US 2017/0005367) in view of Tsujii (US 2012/0231346) and Dai (CN 106876801). Berkel modified by Tsujii and Dai teaches all the elements of claim 21 (see rejection above), except:
the polymer particles are discretely distributed in the sulfide electrolyte material such that the solid electrolyte membrane has a composite brick wall structure in which the sulfide electrolyte material constitutes a wall structure and the polymer particles constitute a brick structure, as recited in claim 21.
Berkel discloses that the polymer is mixed with and or/entangles with the solid electrolyte, and presents no motivation or suggestion to form the brick wall structure as claimed in claim 21.
Pertinent Prior Art
Osaki (JP 2003-257492) – Osaki discloses solid particles having an aspect ratio of 20 or less (page 7 of translation).
Response to Arguments
Arguments dated 8/5/2026 are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections.
Conclusion
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 CYNTHIA KYUNG SOO WALLS whose telephone number is (571)272-8699. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F until 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CYNTHIA K WALLS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights