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 April 16, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue burden. This is not found persuasive because the method search would be in a different classification.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 2-4 are 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.
In claim 2, the limitation “has a value no higher than a threshold value determined by an equation” is vague and considered indefinite.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hippauf et al. (“Hippauf”, US 2022/0029242 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 10, Hippauf discloses a solid electrolyte membrane for a solid state battery ([0006]), where the solid electrolyte material can be Li6PS5Cl (argyrodite) ([0046]), which reads on the formula claimed in claim 1 as well as a) of claim 9 and the limitation of claim 10.
Hippauf teaches the binding agent can be fibrillated polytetrafluoroethylene in small amounts of a maximum of 1 weight percent ([0007]).
Hippauf does not expressly teach the bending strain of no less than 0.1% with the claimed formula.
However, Hippauf teaches a “flexible composite layer” should be understood as a composite layer that can be bent or folded and unfolded by up to 180o without breaking at room temperature, and a bending radius is preferably 90 to 100 microns ([0008]). The claimed limitation is considered to be inherent in Hippauf or at least obvious in view of the above teachings.
As to claim 2, the limitation is rejected under 112 above and does not further limit claim 1.
As to claims 3 and 4, acrylate and PTFE binders are well known in the art. Hippauf teaches PTFE ([0006]) as discussed above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the amount of binder through routine experimentation. Furthermore, both sides of the equation could be zero, meaning the binder and the Cl/Br are optional and not required in the claims.
As to claims 5 and 6, Hippauf teaches conducitivity of 2.5 and 2.7 mS/cm (see Fig. 15).
As to claim 7, Hippauf teaches bending radius is preferably 90 to 100 microns ([0008]), which would imply the thickness in that range.
As to claim 8, Hippauf teaches non-crimp fabric ([0025]), which is a type of nonwoven fabric and acts as a scaffold layer.
As to claim 11, Hippauf does not teach the exact formulae claimed in the Markush group.
However, Hippauf teaches Li6PS5Cl (argyrodite) ([0046]) and teaches different substitutions and of elements, which overlap the combinations in the claimed Markush group. Therefore, the formulae claimed are considered obvious variants.
As to claims 12-14, Hippauf teaches a solid state battery with a solid electrolyte membrane ([0027]) and teaches a cathode unit with a composite material of lithium nickel manganese cobalt ([0046]).
Hippauf also shows voltages well above 2.0 in Figs. 5-9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL H. LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2548. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
DANIEL H. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/DANIEL H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights