DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Publication KR20200085210A (supplied by applicant, used attached machine translation), hereafter Dong, in view of Published Application US20200335818A1, hereafter Christensen, further in view of Foreign Publication WO2022209114A1 (used attached machine translation), hereafter Mitani, and further in view of Foreign Publication EP3657575A1 (used attached machine translation), hereafter Hanauer.
Regarding claim 1, Dong discloses a method of producing a composite solid electrolyte ([0019] method of manufacturing an electrolyte), the method comprising:
step S10 of producing an oxide-based solid electrolyte membrane by electrospinning a mixture comprising an oxide-based solid electrolyte precursor and a polymer ([0019] electrospinning preliminary solution of polymer + solid electrolyte precursor to produce prestructure of fiber structure; [0021] oxide solid electrolyte precursor); and
step S20 of producing an oxide-based solid electrolyte support by removing the polymer inside the oxide-based solid electrolyte membrane ([0019] heat treating preliminary structure to prepare solid electrolyte with fiber structure; [0028] heat treatment includes removing the polymer).
Dong further discloses heat treatment to remove the solvents ([0028]).
Dong is silent on: a step S30 of causing the oxide-based solid electrolyte support to be impregnated with a sulfide-based solid electrolyte using a sulfide-based solid electrolyte precursor solution comprising a sulfide-based solid electrolyte precursor and a solvent,
wherein step S30 comprises:
step S32 of immersing the oxide-based solid electrolyte support in a sulfide-based solid electrolyte precursor impregnation solution; and
step S34 of drying the solvent,
wherein steps S32 and S34 are repeated two to six times, and
wherein step S30 further comprises step S36 of adding the solvent to the sulfide-based solid electrolyte precursor solution before proceeding with the next steps S32 and S34 when repeating steps S32 and S34.
In the analogous art of secondary battery electrolytes, Christensen discloses a step S30 of causing the oxide-based solid electrolyte support ([0023] porous transition-metal oxide ceramic fiber material; [0034] porous ceramic fiber material remains in the cell with sufficient ionic-transport and electrochemical-stability properties) to be impregnated with a sulfide-based solid electrolyte using a sulfide-based solid electrolyte precursor solution comprising a sulfide-based solid electrolyte precursor and a solvent ([0037] dip-coating porous ceramic fiber material substrate in solution of sulfide based electrolyte),
wherein step S30 comprises:
step S32 of immersing the oxide-based solid electrolyte support in a sulfide-based solid electrolyte precursor impregnation solution ([0037] dip-coating porous ceramic fiber material substrate in solution of sulfide based electrolyte); and
step S34 of drying the solvent ([0037] annealing/sintering after dip coating, which would remove the solvent, but one skilled in the art would have understood the need for the liquid solvent to be removed from the solid state electrolyte and thus would have found it obvious to do so).
Christensen further discloses the improved adhesion of electrolyte material to the solid electrolyte support results in enhanced handling properties for enabling roll to roll processing of battery cell production ([0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the invention of Dong to impregnate the solid electrolyte support with a sulfide based electrolyte solution as disclosed by Christensen in order to form a mechanically flexible electrolyte structure with both enhanced handling properties and high ionic conductivity, as suggested by Christensen ([0034], [0038]), and further as a selection of a known material based on its suitability for the intended use (MPEP 2144.07), the intended use being as a battery electrolyte.
Modified Dong discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein steps S32 and S34 are repeated two to six times, and wherein step S30 further comprises step S36 of adding the solvent to the sulfide-based solid electrolyte precursor solution before proceeding with the next steps S32 and S34 when repeating steps S32 and S34.
In the analogous art of battery manufacturing, Mitani discloses that it is known to control the thickness of the electrolyte layer by repeated coating and drying steps of the electrolyte film ([0056]).
In the analogous art of battery manufacturing, Hanauer discloses that it is known to control the thickness of the electrolyte with the concentration of the coating material ([0058] thickness of electrolyte coating is controlled in part by concentration).
However, as the thickness of the coating and filling amount of the sulfide electrolyte in the pores of the oxide-based solid electrolyte support is/are variable(s) that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the number of times steps S32 and S34 are repeated and the concentration of the electrolyte solution, with the thickness of the coating and filling amount of the sulfide electrolyte in the pores of the support increasing as the concentration of the electrolyte and/or the number of times steps S32 and S34 are repeated is increased, the number of times steps S32 and S34 are repeated and concentration of the electrolyte solution would have been considered result effective variables by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed steps S32 and S34 being repeated two to six times and the addition of solvent before repeating cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the number of times steps S32 and S34 are repeated and the addition of solvent before repeating in the invention of modified Dong to obtain the desired thickness of the coating and filling amount of the sulfide electrolyte in the pores of the oxide-based solid electrolyte support (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 2, Dong discloses wherein, in step S10, the oxide-based solid electrolyte precursor comprises a lithium (Li) precursor ([0021] all electrolytes include Li based precursors).
Regarding claim 3, Dong discloses wherein, in step S10, the polymer comprises polyvinyl pyrrolidine (PVP) ([0020] polymer is polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP)).
Regarding claim 4, Dong discloses that the higher the % by weight with respect to the total weight of the mixture of the content of polymer, the larger the diameter of the support ([0027] the higher the wt% concentration of polymer solution, the larger the diameter of the preliminary structure 400 may be; the maximum diameter may be controlled by controlling the concentration of the polymer solution).
As the diameter of the electrospun support is/are variable(s) that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the wt% of the polymer, with the diameter of the electrospun support increasing as the wt% concentration of the polymer is increased, the wt% of the polymer would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed respective contents of 57-58% by weight of the oxide-based solid electrolyte precursor and 42-43% by weight of the polymer cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the % by weight of the polymer in the invention of modified Dong to obtain the desired diameter of the electrospun support (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 5, Dong discloses wherein step S10 comprises:
step S12 of preparing an oxide-based solid electrolyte precursor solution ([0019], [0021] preparing solid electrolyte precursor solution);
step S14 of preparing a polymer solution comprising the polymer ([0020] preparing polymer solution),
step S16 of producing the mixture by mixing the oxide-based solid electrolyte precursor solution with the polymer solution ([0022] preliminary solution prepared by mixing polymer solution and solid electrolyte precursor solution); and
step S18 of producing the oxide-based solid electrolyte membrane by electrospinning the mixture ([0024] electrospinning preliminary solution).
Regarding claim 6, Dong discloses wherein, in step S20, the solid electrolyte membrane is heated at 400°C to 700°C ([0029] heat temperature of 200 degrees to 1000 degrees, which encompasses the claimed range of 400°C to 700°C. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 8, Dong discloses wherein, in step S30, the sulfide-based electrolyte precursor is represented by Li6PS5Cl ([0021]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Dong discloses a composite solid electrolyte produced by the method of producing the composite solid electrolyte of claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Publication KR20200085210A (supplied by applicant, used attached machine translation), hereafter Dong, in view of Published Application US20200335818A1, hereafter Christensen, further in view of Foreign Publication WO2022209114A1 (used attached machine translation), hereafter Mitani, and further in view of Foreign Publication EP3657575A1 (used attached machine translation), hereafter Hanauer, as stated above for claim 1, and further in view of Published Application US20210036373A1, hereafter Li.
Regarding claim 7, Dong is silent on wherein, in step S30, the sulfide-based solid electrolyte precursor solution has a concentration of 0.01 M to 0.35 M.
In the analogous art of sulfide solid battery electrolyte precursor solutions, Li discloses wherein the sulfide-based solid electrolyte precursor solution has a concentration of 0.01 M to 0.35 M ([0006] S-SSE precursor solution comprises a concentration of about 0.001 g/mL to about 20 g/mL of the sulfide based solid state electrolyte; [0007] Li3PS4 - 180.06 g/mol; M = 0.001 g/mL / 180.06 g/mol x 1000 = 0.00555 M; M = 20 g/mL / 180.06 g/mol x 1000 = 111.07 M; thus, Li discloses a range of 0.00555 M to 111.07 M, which encompasses the claimed range of 0.01 M to 0.35 M.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to select an appropriate concentration of the sulfide-based solid electrolyte precursor solution, such as the claimed 0.01 M to 0.35 M, which is within the range disclosed by Li as stated above, in order to achieve the desired thickness of the electrolyte layer as a routine optimization of a result-effective variable as stated above for claim 1, since the precursor solution must have some concentration, and one skilled in the art would have understood for example from Hanauer that the thickness of the electrolyte layer scales with the concentration of the electrolyte solution ([0058]).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Publication KR20200085210A (supplied by applicant, used attached machine translation), hereafter Dong, in view of Published Application US20200335818A1, hereafter Christensen, further in view of Foreign Publication WO2022209114A1 (used attached machine translation), hereafter Mitani, and further in view of Foreign Publication EP3657575A1 (used attached machine translation), hereafter Hanauer, as stated above for claim 1, and further in view of Published Application US20200119394A1, hereafter Jang.
Regarding claim 9, Dong is silent on wherein, in step S30, the solvent comprises at least one or more selected from the group consisting of acetonitrile, ethanol, and anisole.
In the analogous art of sulfide solid battery electrolyte precursor solutions, Jang discloses wherein the solvent comprises acetonitrile or ethanol ([0014] solvent may be ethanol or acetonitrile).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to select acetonitrile or ethanol as the precursor solution solvent as a selection of a known material based on its suitability for the intended use (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 10, modified Dong is silent on wherein, in step S34, the solvent is dried at 60°C to 110°C.
The examiner further notes that the temperature at which a solvent dries is heavily dependent on its composition.
In the analogous art of sulfide solid battery electrolyte precursor solutions, Jang discloses wherein the solvent comprises acetonitrile or ethanol ([0014] solvent may be ethanol or acetonitrile), and further wherein the solvent is dried at 60°C to 110°C ([0016] drying performed at about 25°C to 200°C, which overlaps with the claimed range of 60°C to 110°C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to select a solvent for the sulfide solid electrolyte precursor solution such as acetonitrile or ethanol as disclosed by Jang as a selection of a known material based on its suitability for the intended use (MPEP 2144.07).
It would further have been obvious to select a drying temperature of about 25°C to 200°C as disclosed by Jang in order thoroughly dry up the solvent to complete the formation of the solid electrolyte layer.
The examiner notes that the drying temperature of about 25°C to 200°C overlaps with the claimed range of 60°C to 110°C. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY HEMINGWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-0235. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6-4.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/T.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights