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
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected polymer solid electrolyte, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/15/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 7/15/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the special shared technical feature has been incorrectly selected, and the shared technical feature makes a contribution over the prior art. This is not found persuasive as evidenced below, every shared feature between groups 1 and 2 are met by the reference. The examiner notes that the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-2, 4, 9-11, & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0235427 A1), in view of Wang et al. (CN 111180791 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a method for preparing a polymer solid electrolyte (solid electrolyte 190), the method comprising: preparing a solution (Par. 0080; “second coating solution”) of a polymer (Par. 0080; “conductive polymer”), a non-volatile liquid-phase compound (Par. 0080, “ionic liquid”; Par. 0053, “The ionic liquid is nonvolatile”), a lithium salt (Par. 0080), and a solvent (Par. 0080; “acetonitrile as solvent”); forming a coating layer by applying the solution on a substrate (Par. 0080, the second coating solution is applied on Teflon as a substrate); and drying the coating layer to form a polymer solid electrolyte film (Par. 0080; drying is performed at room temperature, then 40°C; this forms the second polymer electrolyte layer 150). Kim fails to explicitly teach formation of a liquid-phase film.
Kim additionally fails to teach a process of separating the polymer solid electrolyte film and the liquid-phase film from the substrate.
However, Wang teaches preparing a solution of a polymer (claim 1; “polyacrylonitrile”), an ionic liquid (claim 1; “ionic liquid”; imidazole is provided as a cation, as does Kim), a lithium salt (claim 1), and a solvent (claim 1; acetonitrile is provided as an organic solvent, which is also used by Kim), applying the solution onto a substrate to form a coating layer (claim 1; “pouring the sol on the polyfluortetraethylene plate, … or stainless steel plate”; polytetrafluoroethylene is Teflon, which is also taught by Kim); and separating the polymer solid electrolyte film from the substrate (claim 1; “using the scraping method of the coating film to obtain the composite solid electrolyte”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for preparing a polymer solid electrolyte taught by Kim by incorporating a step of separating the polymer solid electrolyte film and liquid-phase film from the substrate, as taught by Wang. One of ordinary skill would have determined that this is a known method in the art which would yield predictable results of an electrolyte film which has a wider range of use as a free film.
Regarding the formation of a liquid-phase film, as stated in the present specification, the presence of two separate films in two different states is due to the immiscibility of the non-volatile liquid-phase compound and the polymer. The present specification provides PPC, and PAN as potential polymers, which Kim also teaches in Par. 0047. Additionally, the present specification provides a plurality of options for ionic liquids which fit the requirements of the non-volatile liquid-phase compound, which Kim also meets (Par. 0055-0056; many of the possible ionic liquid cations and anions are taught). Thus, Kim teaches immiscibility between the non-volatile liquid-phase compound and the polymer, and a method of drying them within the temperature requirements of 150°C, so a liquid-phase film and a polymer solid electrolyte film must be separately formed.
Therefore, because modified Kim provides identical polymers and processing conditions to those used in the instant application, it is the Examiner’s position that PPC and PAN will result in the liquid phase film due to immiscibility. If the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (See MPEP 2112.01(II)).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the polymer solid electrolyte film comprises the polymer and the lithium salt (Par. 0080), wherein the non-volatile liquid-phase compound is immiscible with the polymer (The polymers and ionic liquids taught by the present specification and Kim overlap, and the present specification teaches that the overlapping compounds are immiscible). Kim fails to explicitly teach the liquid-phase film comprising the non-volatile liquid-phase compound, wherein the liquid-phase film is formed on the substrate and the polymer solid electrolyte film is formed on the liquid-phase film.
However, Kim inherently teaches the liquid-phase film comprising the non-volatile liquid-phase compound. As previously stated, since the polymers and ionic liquids taught by Kim are immiscible with one another, two separate phases would be formed, and since the solution is dried below 150°C, as stated in the present specification, the non-volatile ionic liquid must stay in the liquid-phase.
Kim also inherently teaches the liquid-phase film being formed on the substrate and the polymer solid electrolyte film being formed on the liquid-phase film. Kim teaches the coating layer being initially dried at room temperature, and at low temperatures, the outer layer would be dried and solidified first, with the liquid layer underneath the solid layer, formed on the substrate. Additionally, Kim’s solid electrolyte is meant for use in an all-solid battery, as is that of the present application. Thus, the outside of the electrolyte would have to be a solid layer, so the liquid-phase film would be located under the polymer solid electrolyte film.
For the reasons above regarding immiscibility and identical processing conditions, it is the Examiner’s position that the liquid-phase film will contain the non-volatile liquid-phase compound and will be formed on the substrate under the polymer solid electrolyte film.
Regarding claim 4, modified Kim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the polymer comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of polypropylene carbonate (Par. 0047) and polyacrylonitrile (Par. 0047).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the lithium salt comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of LiTFSI, LiCl, LiBr, LiI, LiClO4, LiBF4, LiB10C10, LiPF6, LiCF3SO3, LiCF3CO2, LiAsF6, LiSbF6, LiAlCl4, CH3SO3Li, CF3SO3Li, LiSCN, LiC(CF3SO2)3, (CF3SO2)2NLi, and (FSO2)2NLi (All compounds listed in Par. 0060).
Regarding claim 10, Kim fails to teach the substrate comprising stainless steel, a copper foil, or an aluminum foil. Kim rather teaches the substrate as made of Teflon.
However, Wang teaches a substrate which may be made of Teflon or stainless steel (claim 1; polyfluortetraethylene plate, … or stainless steel plate).
The examiner notes that selection of a known material based on its suitability for intended use supports a prima facia obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate taught by Kim by forming it out of stainless steel instead of Teflon, as taught by Wang, because stainless steel is identified as a suitable material for a substrate.
Regarding claim 11, modified Kim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein forming the coating layer is performed by die coating or comma coating (Par. 0073).
Regarding claim 14, modified Kim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein drying the coating layer is performed at 150°C or less (Par. 0080; drying is performed at room temperature and then 40°C, which both fit in the claimed range).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Wang, and further in view of Kim (US 2017/0222244 A1; herein referred to as Kim (2017)).
Regarding claim 3, Kim fails to teach a weight ratio of the polymer and the non-volatile liquid-phase compound in the solution of 1:0.8 to 1:5.5. Kim rather teaches a weight ratio of 1:0.2 to 1:0.5.
However, Kim (2017) teaches a polymer (Par. 0039) and a non-volatile liquid-phase compound (Par. 0039, “ionic liquid”) in an electrolyte solution with a weight ratio of 1:0.8 to 1:5.5 (Par. 0039; the ionic liquid is present in an amount of 33 to 300 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the polymer; this corresponds to a weight ratio of the polymer and the ionic liquid of 1:0.33 to 1:3). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for preparing a polymer solid electrolyte taught by Kim by incorporating a polymer and a non-volatile liquid-phase compound in a weight ratio of 1:0.8 to 1:5.5, s taught by Kim (2017). This would be done in order to ensure the formation of a self-standing film while increasing ionic conductivity, as stated in Kim (2017) (Par. 0039).
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Choi, and further in view of Pan et al. (US 2018/0226679 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the non-volatile liquid-phase compound comprises an ionic liquid (Par. 0080). Kim fails to teach the non-volatile liquid-phase compound comprising polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane (POSS).
However, Pan teaches a solid polymer electrolyte which is prepared by a process which uses a non-volatile liquid-phase compound comprising POSS (Par. 0003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of preparing a polymer solid electrolyte taught by Kim by incorporating POSS as the non-volatile liquid-phase compound, as taught by Pan. This would be done in order to block the growth of lithium dendrites, as stated in Pan (Par. 0003, 0006).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kim teaches the method of claim 5, wherein Pan teaches POSS comprising one or more functional groups, wherein the one or more functional groups comprise O (Par. 0006, POSS-PEG, PEG functional group contains O; Par. 0018, “(PEG) as the lithium ion solvating polymer”).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kim teaches the method of claim 6, wherein Pan teaches the one or more functional groups consisting of poly(ethylene glycol) (Par. 0006).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kim teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the ionic liquid comprises a cation and an anion, and the cation comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of imidazolium, pyrazolium, triazolium, thiazolium, oxazolium, pyridazinium, pyrimidinium, pyrazinium, pyridinium, and pyrrolidinium (all compounds listed in Par. 0055), and wherein the anion comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of PF6- (Par. 0056; hexafluorophosphate), BF4-(Par. 0056; tetrafluoroborate), CF3SO3- (Par. 0056; trifluoromethylsulfonate), and N(CF3SO2)2- (Par. 0056; bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Wang, and further in view of Choi et al. (WO 2018/190665 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Kim fails to teach a weight ratio of the polymer and the lithium salt of 1:0.5 to 1:3. Kim rather teaches a weight ratio of the polymer and the lithium salt of 1:0.3 to 1:0.4 (Par. 0061).
However, Choi teaches a polymer (Pg. 6, Par. 1; “electrolyte polymer”) and a lithium salt (Pg. 6, Par. 4-6), wherein a weight ratio of the polymer and the lithium salt is 1:0.5 to 1:3 (Pg. 1, Par. 1 & 4). Choi teaches a weight % of the polymer of 10-30% based on the total weight of the polymer solid electrolyte, and a weight % of the lithium salt of 10-30% based on the total weight of the polymer solid electrolyte. Taking 10/30 and 30/10, this corresponds to a weight ratio of the polymer and the lithium salt of 1:0.33 to 1:3, which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the weight ratio of the polymer and lithium salt taught by Kim by increasing it to 1:0.5 to 1:3, as taught by Choi. This would be done in order to prevent battery life deterioration and a decrease in ion conductivity, as stated in Choi (Pg. 6, Par. 1 & 4).
Regarding claim 13, Kim fails to teach the solvent comprising one or more selected from the claimed group. Kim rather teaches the solvent as acetonitrile (Par. 0080).
However, Choi teaches a solvent for a polymer solid electrolyte (Pg. 6, Par. 5; “the organic solvent used for preparing the polymer solid electrolyte”), wherein the solvent comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of propylene carbonate (Pg. 6, Par. 5) and ethylene carbonate (Pg. 6, Par. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for preparing a polymer solid electrolyte taught by Kim by incorporating a solvent composed of propylene carbonate or ethylene carbonate, as taught by Choi. This would be done in order to ensure that the lithium salt is fully dissolved, as stated in Choi (Pg. 6, Par. 2 & 5; “a solvent capable of dissolving the ion conductive compound”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON M BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)272-9742. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/CAMERON M BAIRD/ Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights