CTNF 18/471,878 CTNF 101423 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Amendments to the specification, drawings, and claims, filed 13 May 2026, have been entered in the above identified application Claims 1-12 and 21-24 are pending in the application Claims 13-14, 17, and 19 are withdrawn in the application Claims 15-16, 18, and 20 are cancelled in the application Examiner’s Comment To improve clarity for the groupings listed in Claim 23, it would be beneficial to use the standard Markush grouping language of “selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" (MPEP 2173.05(h)). Drawings 06-22-06 AIA The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: ref. #13 (negative electrode current collectors) and ref. #15 (positive electrode current collectors), specification paragraph [0039] . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation “the electrolyte” in line 1, which should be corrected to “the solid electrolyte” to remove ambiguity . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-12 and 21-24 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. The terms “greater than or equal to about ” and “less than or equal to about ” in claims 1-2, 5-9, and 11 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “greater than or equal to about” and “less than or equal to about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As the term “about” is said in the specification to have a range of possible meanings ( i.e. ranging from 5% to 0.5%, [0092] ) it is unclear how one could interpret “greater than or equal to about” and “less than or equal to about” in the claims, which renders them vague and indefinite ( MPEP 2173.05(b).III.A ). Claim 22 recites the limitation “wherein the LPSO comprises, by weight, greater than or equal to 90% and less than or equal to 100% of the electrolyte” in lines 1-2 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if this limitation means that 90%-100% of the LPSO is made up of the electrolyte, which is what appears to be claimed, or if 90%-100% of the electrolyte is made up of the LPSO. Claim 22 recites the limitation “wherein the LPSO comprises, by weight, greater than or equal to 10% and less than or equal to 30% of the negative electrode or the positive electrode” in lines 4-5 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if this limitation means that 10% to 30% of the LPSO is made up of the negative electrode or the positive electrode, which is what appears to be claimed, or if 10% to 30% of the negative electrode or the positive electrode is made up of the LPSO. Claims 2-12 and 21-24 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 4-6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Hu (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0320329) . Regarding Claims 1 and 4 , Hu teaches a solid electrolyte for a battery that cycles lithium ions ( abstract ), the electrolyte comprising an electrically insulating and ionically conductive lithium phosphorus oxysulfide (LPSO) represented by the formula Li 3 PS 3.75 O .0.25 ( [0245] ). This LPSO has values for phosphorous and oxygen that fall within the claimed ranges of 3.7 to 3.8 and 0.2 and 0.3, respectively. Since the prior art recites a value within the claimed range, the claimed range is anticipated by the prior art (MPEP 2131.03.II). Regarding Claim 5, Hu further teaches a battery that cycles lithium ions, which includes a negative electrode comprising an electroactive negative electrode material ( anode, [0121]-[0123], and fig. 50 ref. #103 ), a positive electrode ( cathode ) spaced apart from the negative electrode and comprising an electroactive positive electrode material ( [0121]-[0123], and fig. 50 ref. #101 ), and an electrolyte disposed between the negative electrode and the positive electrode that provides a medium for the conduction of lithium ions between the negative electrode and the positive electrode ( [0121]-[0123], and fig. 50 ref. #102 ) Regarding Claim 6 , Hu teaches the LPSO is represented by the formula Li 3 PS 3.75 O .0.25 ( [0245] ). This LPSO has values for phosphorous and oxygen that fall within the claimed ranges of 3.7 to 3.8 and 0.2 and 0.3, respectively. Since the prior art recites a value within the claimed range, the claimed range is anticipated by the prior art (MPEP 2131.03.II) . 07-15 AIA Claim s 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Hu (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0320329) as evidenced by Noori (Noori, K., et. al., Activation in solid ionic electrolytes. 24 June 2024. Physical Review Research. 6, 023322) . Hu is relied upon as described above. Regarding Claims 3, Hu further teaches that LPSO has an ionic conductivity at a temperature of about 21 degrees Celsius of greater than or equal to about 1 millisiemen per centimeter ( [0253], and fig. 38B, samples at a sintering duration of 2 and 6 hours ). Hu does not explicitly teach an ionic conductivity at a temperature of about 25 degrees Celsius of greater than or equal to about 1 millisiemen per centimeter. Therefore, as Hu teaches an ionic conductivity at a temperature of about 21 degrees Celsius of greater than or equal to about 1 millisiemen per centimeter, Hu also teaches an ionic conductivity at a temperature of about 25 degrees Celsius of greater than or equal to about 1 millisiemen per centimeter. Noori teaches that solid electrolytes are generally accepted to follow the equation σ = σ 0 e - E a / k B T / T , wherein T is the temperature, 𝑘 𝐵 is the Boltzmann constant, and 𝐸 𝑎 is referred to as the activation energy ( page 1, column 1, lines 2-7 ). In this formulation, ionic conductivity in solids increases with temperature ( page 1, column 1, lines 7-8 ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0320329), as evidenced by Noori (Noori, K., et. al., Activation in solid ionic electrolytes. 24 June 2024. Physical Review Research. 6, 023322), in view of Yoshioka (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0231332) . Hu is relied upon as described above. Regarding Claims 2 and 7 , Hu does not explicitly teach the LPSO is primarily crystalline and has a crystalline volume fraction of greater than or equal to about 90%. Yoshioka teaches a solid-state battery ( title ) with a positive electrode layer and a negative electrode layer stacked with respect to each other with a solid electrolyte layer interposed therebetween ( abstract ). Yoshioka also teaches the solid electrolyte includes a portion in which there are both crystalline and amorphous ( glassy ) materials, in which the crystalline volume fraction ranges from 40% to 99% ( [0010] ). A crystalline volume fraction in this range allows for the denseness of the solid electrolyte layer to be increased, while also suppressing potential decreases in the mechanical strength of the solid electrolyte layer ( [0082] ). The crystalline volume fraction range of 40% to 99%, as taught by Yoshioka, overlaps with the claimed range of greater than or equal to about 99%. 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the crystalline volume fraction range of Yoshioka in the solid electrolyte of Hu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this range for the suppression of potential decreases in the mechanical strength of the solid electrolyte layer. Regarding Claim 8, Hu further teaches that LPSO has an ionic conductivity at a temperature of about 21 degrees Celsius of greater than or equal to about 1 millisiemen per centimeter ( [0253], and fig. 38B, samples at a sintering duration of 2 and 6 hours ). Hu does not explicitly teach an ionic conductivity at a temperature of about 25 degrees Celsius of greater than or equal to about 1 millisiemen per centimeter. Noori teaches that solid electrolytes are generally accepted to follow the equation σ = σ 0 e - E a / k B T / T , wherein T is the temperature, 𝑘 𝐵 is the Boltzmann constant, and 𝐸 𝑎 is referred to as the activation energy ( page 1, column 1, lines 2-7 ). In this formulation, ionic conductivity in solids increases with temperature ( page 1, column 1, lines 7-8 ). Therefore, as Hu teaches an ionic conductivity at a temperature of about 21 degrees Celsius of greater than or equal to about 1 millisiemen per centimeter, Hu also teaches an ionic conductivity at a temperature of about 25 degrees Celsius of greater than or equal to about 1 millisiemen per centimeter . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0320329) in view of Yoshioka (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0231332), further in view of Tan (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0358085) . Hu and Yoshioka are relied upon as described above. Regarding Claim 9, Hu and Yoshioka do not explicitly teach the LPSO is a particulate material comprising particles having a mean particle diameter of greater than or equal to about 1 micrometer and less than or equal to about 10 micrometers. Tan teaches a solid electrolyte for use in an all-solid-state battery ( abstract ). Tan further teaches the solid electrolyte is a lithium-phosphorous-sulfur (LPS) or LPS-type solid electrolyte ( [0033] ). The solid electrolyte has is a particle that has a mean particle diameter of 0.5 μm to 20 μm ( [0035] ). If the average particle diameter of the sulfide-based solid electrolyte particles is less than the above range, the particles may aggregate with each other. If the average particle diameter of the sulfide-based solid electrolyte particles is greater than the above range, on the other hand, the porosity of the manufactured solid electrolyte is high, whereby the capacity of the battery may be reduced, and therefore the characteristics of the battery may be deteriorated. The range of mean particle diameters of 0.5 μm to 20 μm, as taught by Tan, overlaps with the claimed range of greater than or equal to about 1 μm and less than or equal to about 10 μm. 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the particle size of the solid electrolyte as taught by Tan for the solid electrolyte of modified Hu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this size to avoid the particle aggregation of smaller particles and reduction of battery capacity of larger particles. Regarding Claim 21 , Hu teaches the LPSO is formed with a mixture of the precursors consisting of lithium sulfide (Li 2 S), phosphorus pentasulfide (P 2 S 5 ), and phosphorus pentoxide (P 2 O 5 ) ( [0249] ). The limitation “the LPSO is formed by annealing a precursor comprising a mixture of lithium sulfide (Li2S), phosphorus pentasulfide (P2Ss), and phosphorus pentoxide (P205) at a temperature of about 260 degrees Celsius for a duration of greater than or equal to 2 hours and less than or equal to 3 hours” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process produces unexpected results. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. MPEP 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Hu discloses Li 3 PS 3.75 O .0.25 ( [0245] ) made from a mixture of the same precursors ( [0249] ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 10-12 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0320329) in view of Yoshioka (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0231332) and Tan (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0358085), further in view of Finsy (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2022/012889) . Hu, Yoshioka, and Tan are relied upon as described above. Hu, Yoshioka, and Tan do not explicitly teach the electrolyte further comprises a liquid electrolyte solution comprising a nonaqueous aprotic organic solvent and a lithium salt. Finsy teaches a solid composite electrolyte for a solid-state battery ( abstract ). The solid composite electrolyte includes at least one sulfide-based solid ionic conducting inorganic particle ( abstract ), including LPSO materials represented by Li x P y S z O, in which 0.33≤x≤0.67, 0.07≤y≤0.2, 0.4≤z≤0.55 ( page 15, paragraph 3, lines 8-9 ), a lithium salt ( abstract ), and at least one nonaqueous aprotic organic solvent such as acetonitrile ( abstract and page 19, paragraph 2 ). The addition of the lithium salt and nonaqueous aprotic organic solvent allow for an increase in ion conductivity and the ability to dissolve the lithium salt while still being compatible with the solid electrolyte ( page 18, lines 24-27 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the lithium salt and nonaqueous aprotic organic solvent of Finsy with the electrolyte of modified Hu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these inclusions for the increase in ion conductivity. Regarding Claim 11 , Hu, Yoshioka, and Tan do not explicitly teach the LPSO constitutes, by weight, greater than or equal to about 10% and less than or equal to 90% of the electrolyte. Finsy further teaches an electrolyte wherein the LSPS ( LPSO equivalent ) is 46%, by weight, of the electrolyte ( page 23 lines 4-14 ). The electrolyte in this mass proportion shows increased conductivity as compared to electrodes with less LSPS ( page 26, Table 1, Ex 1 ). The example electrolyte as shown by Finsy that is 46%, by weight, of the electrolyte lies within the claimed range of greater than or equal to about 10% and less than or equal to 90% of the electrolyte. Since the prior art recites a value within the claimed range, the claimed range is made obvious by the prior art ( MPEP 2144.05 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the proportion of LPSO as taught by Finsly in the electrolyte of modified Hu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this amount for the increased conductivity. Regarding Claim 12, Hu further teaches the negative electrode ( anode ) comprises particles of the LPSO ( [0122] ). Regarding Claim 23 , modified Hu does not explicitly teach the electrolyte further comprises a polymer matrix comprising poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO), poly(acrylic acid) (PAA), poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), polyacrylonitrile (PAN), polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF), poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), a copolymer of poly(vinylidene fluoride) and hexafluoropropylene, or a combination thereof. Finsy further teaches the electrolyte further comprises a polymer matrix ( page 3 lines 17-22, the polymers are used to form a polymer matrix ) comprising polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) ( page 9, lines 21-27 ), polyacrylonitrile (PAN) ( page 13, lines 27-31 ), and a copolymer of poly(vinylidene fluoride) and hexafluoropropylene ( page 10 lines 18-19 ). The use of these materials to form a polymer matrix are beneficial as they may offer the possibility to combine the high ionic conductivity of the sulfide-based solid electrolyte with the good mechanical properties and processability of the polymers ( page 3, lines 17-22 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the polymers to form the polymer matrix of Finsy in the electrolyte of modified Hu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion to combine the high ionic conductivity of the sulfide-based solid electrolyte with the good mechanical properties and processability of the polymers . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0320329) in view of Yoshioka (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0231332), Tan (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0358085), further in view of Oshima (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0151792) . Hu, Yoshioka and Tan et al. are relied upon as described above. Hu further teaches the LPSO comprises, by weight, 100% of the electrolyte ( [0123], the solid electrolyte as described is the solid electrolyte layer, fig. 50 ref. #102, and the LPSO is the solid electrolyte [0245] ). Hu further teaches the negative electrode ( anode ) comprises particles of the LPSO ( [0122] ). Modified Hu does not explicitly teach the LPSO comprises, by weight, greater than or equal to 10% and less than or equal to 30% of the negative electrode or the positive electrode. Oshima teaches an anode ( negative electrode ) which includes a solid electrolyte ( abstract ), the solid electrolyte being LPS ( [0063] ) and LPS-type ( [0011]-[0012] ) materials. The negative electrode includes the solid electrolyte, by weight, greater than or equal to 20% and less than or equal to 70% of the negative electrode or the positive electrode ( [0108] ). This mass range of the solid electrolyte within the anode allows for an improvement of the charge-discharge efficiency of the battery. The amount of the solid electrolyte in the anode, as taught by Oshima, overlaps with the claimed range of greater than or equal to 10% and less than or equal to 30%, by weight. 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the amount of solid electrolyte in the anode of Hu as taught by Oshima. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the amount for the improved charge-discharge efficiency of the battery . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0320329) in view of Yoshioka (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0231332), Tan (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0358085), and Finsy (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2022/012889), further in view of Jung (Korean Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0013834). For prior art discussion see English translations for KR-20160013834-A Hu, Yoshioka, and Tan are relied upon as described above. Modified Hu does not explicitly teach the electrolyte further comprises a polymer film having an open microporous structure and comprising a polyolefin. Jung teaches a solid electrolyte for an all-solid-state rechargeable battery ( title ). The electrolyte includes a polymer film ( porous polymer membrane, abstract ) having an open microporous structure ( the diameter of the pores contained within the porous polymer membrane may be 0.001 µm to 100 µm, [0026] ). The polymer film is made of polyolefins ( [0027] ). The polymer film allows for a solid electrolyte composite with improved energy density and improved resistance characteristics ( [0058] ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the polymer fil of Jung in the solid electrolyte of Hu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion for the improved energy density and improved resistance characteristics. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Myles Alan Lovasz whose telephone number is (571)272-0214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm. 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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. /MAL/ Myles Alan LovaszExaminer, Art Unit 1788 06/15/2026 /ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/471,878 Page 2 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/471,878 Page 3 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/471,878 Page 4 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/471,878 Page 5 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/471,878 Page 6 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/471,878 Page 7 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/471,878 Page 8 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/471,878 Page 9 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/471,878 Page 10 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/471,878 Page 11 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/471,878 Page 12 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/471,878 Page 13 Art Unit: 1788
Prosecution Insights