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 .
Summary
This is a non-final office action for application 18/563,347 filed on 11/21/2023. Claims 1-11 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 and 11, in the reply filed on 08/13/2026 is acknowledged. Group(s) II, claims 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/13/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copies have been filed in parent Application Nos. KR10-2021-0180710 filed on 12/16/2021 and PCT/KR2022/019904 filed on 12/08/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/21/2023, 04/17/2025 and 06/18/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 reads “(PEPOT:PSS)” .
Claim 5 reads ”the polymer particles comprises” however this should read “the polymer particles comprise”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 7-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toshinobu et al. (JP 2000-149659 A) as evidenced by Kynar 741 Technical Data Sheet and Kynar 2801 Technical Data Sheet.
Regarding Claim 1, Toshinobu discloses a polymer solid electrolyte (see e.g. "a solid electrolyte" in paragraph [4]) comprising an ion conducting polymer (see e.g. " a polymer binding the polymer particles" in paragraph [5]), a lithium salt (see e.g. "an electrolytic solution" in paragraph [5] and "The electrolyte generally comprises an electrolyte salt and a solvent... , the electrolyte salt needs to contain lithium" in paragraph [114]), and polymer particles (see e.g. "polymer particles" in paragraph [5]),
wherein the polymer particles are PVDF Kynar 741 and the ion conducting polymer is PVDF-HFP Kynar 2801 (see e.g. "Polymer Particles PVDF Kynar 741... Polymer (binder) PVDF Kynar 2801" in paragraph [173]).
Toshinobu does not explicitly disclose that the density ratio Δd of the polymer particles to the ion conducting polymer is 3 or less. The technical data sheets for the commercially available polymers identified by Toshinobu, however, disclose a typical density of 1.77–1.79 g/cm3 for PVDF Kynar 741 and a typical density of 1.77–1.80 g/cm3 for PVDF-HFP Kynar 2801 (see e.g. Technical Data Sheet for PVDF Kynar 741 and PVDF-HFP Kynar 2801).
Therefore, the minimum expected density ratio of the polymer particles and the ion conducting polymer can be calculated using Equation 1: Δd = d2 / d1 wherein d1 is a density of the ion conducting polymer, and d2 is a density of the polymer particles.
Δd = (1.77-1.79) / (1.77-1.8) ≈ 0.983-1.01
It is proper to rely on extrinsic evidence to establish the inherent properties of a known material where the reference itself is silent, as long as the evidence shows that the property is necessarily present and would be recognized as such by a person of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2131.01.
While it is understood that the density of the polymers used by Toshinobu may not be the exact densities reported in the technical data sheet, as polymer density may vary somewhat depending on factors such as crystallinity, thermal history, and processing conditions, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the particular commercial PVDF and PVDF-HFP materials identified by Toshinobu to possess densities near their manufacturer reported typical values. Thus, the reported density ratio is approximately 1 and is substantially below the claimed upper limit of 3. Ordinary variations in the processing of these materials would not lead a person of ordinary skill in the art from reasonably expecting the resulting density ratio to satisfy the claimed range, such that materials disclosed by the prior art overlap the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 2, Toshinobu discloses the polymer solid electrolyte of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Toshinobu along with the extrinsic evidence teaches a minimum expected density ratio (Δd) is 0.983-1.01 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
While it is understood that the density of the polymers used by Toshinobu may not be the exact densities reported in the technical data sheet, as polymer density may vary somewhat depending on factors such as crystallinity, thermal history, and processing conditions, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the particular commercial PVDF and PVDF-HFP materials identified by Toshinobu to possess densities near their manufacturer reported typical values. Thus, the reported density ratio is approximately 1 and is substantially above the claimed lower limit of 0.5 and substantially below the claimed upper limit of 2.5. Ordinary variations in the processing of these materials would not lead a person of ordinary skill in the art from reasonably expecting the resulting density ratio to satisfy the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 3, Toshinobu discloses the polymer solid electrolyte of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Toshinobu further discloses that the ion conducting polymer is polyvinylidene fluoride (see e.g. "Polymer (binder) PVDF Kynar 2801" in paragraph [173]).
Regarding Claim 4, Toshinobu discloses the polymer solid electrolyte of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Toshinobu further discloses the lithium salt is expressed as Li+X−, and the anion (X−) of the lithium salt is PF6-, ClO4-, BF4-, CF3SO3- and (CF3SO2)2N- (see e.g. " LiPF6, LiClO4, LiBF4" in paragraph [114]-[115] and "Electrolyte salts such as LiSO3CF3 and LiN(CF3SO2)2 are applicable" in paragraph [116]).
Regarding Claim 7, Toshinobu discloses the polymer solid electrolyte of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Toshinobu further discloses that the average particle diameter of the polymer particles is 0.1 to 0.5 μm (see e.g. "The average particle size of the polymer particles used in the present invention is preferably 0.1 to 0.5 μm" in paragraph [22]).
Toshinobu discloses a range within the range claimed by the instant application, thereby anticipating the claimed ranges. In the case where the prior art teaches a range within the claimed range, the claim is anticipated. See MPEP 2131.03 (I).
Regarding Claim 8, Toshinobu discloses the polymer solid electrolyte of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Toshinobu further discloses that the solid electrolyte is in the form of a thin film having a thickness of 40 μm (see e.g. " The film thickness (dry film thickness) of the solid electrolyte sheet was 40 μm" in paragraph [177]).
Toshinobu discloses a specific point within the range claimed by the instant application, thereby anticipating the claimed ranges. In the case where the prior art teaches a point within the claimed range, the claim is anticipated. See MPEP 2131.03 (I).
Regarding Claim 11, Toshinobu discloses an all-solid-state battery(see e.g. "lithium secondary battery" in paragraph [148]) comprising a positive electrode (see e.g. " a positive electrode" in paragraph [148]), a negative electrode (see e.g. "a negative electrode" in paragraph [148]), and the polymer solid electrolyte (see e.g. "the electrolyte of the present invention" in paragraph [148]) of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toshinobu et al. (JP 2000-149659 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US-20190181435-A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Toshinobu discloses the polymer solid electrolyte of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above). Toshinobu does not disclose that the polymer particles comprises an engineering plastic resin, and the engineering plastic resin comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), polyetheretherketone, polyimide, polyamideimide, liquid crystal polymer, polyetherimide, polysulfone, polyarylate, polyethylene terephthalate, polybutylene terephthalate, polyoxymethylene, polycarbonate, polypropylene, polyethylene, and poly methyl methacrylate).
Lee, however, in the same field of endeavor, composite polymer solid electrolytes, discloses a polymer solid electrolyte (see e.g. "composite electrolyte" in paragraph [0041]) that comprising polymer particles (see e.g. " positively charged particle" in paragraph [0041] of Lee) which comprise an engineering plastic resin, and the engineering plastic resin comprises poly methyl methacrylate (see e.g. "polymethyl methacrylate" in paragraph [0054] of Lee).
Lee also teaches that by including this type of particle leads to increased lithium-ion migration in the composite electrolyte, resulting in an increase in the lithium-ion transference number in the composite electrolyte (see e.g. paragraph [0041] of Lee). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the polymer particles of Toshinobu et al. such that they comprises n engineering plastic resin, and the engineering plastic resin comprises poly methyl methacrylate as taught by Lee et al. in order to increase lithium ion migration in the polymer electrolyte as suggested by Lee.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toshinobu et al. (JP 2000-149659 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Porcarelli et al. (Single-Ion Conducting Polymer Nanoparticles as Functional Fillers for Solid Electrolytes in Lithium Metal Batteries, 3 Nov 2021).
Regarding Claim 6, Toshinobu discloses the polymer solid electrolyte of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Toshinobu does not disclose that the polymer solid electrolyte comprises 45 to 95% by weight of the ion conducting polymer, 2 to 50% by weight of the lithium salt, and 2 to 35% by weight of the polymer particles.
Porcarelli, however, in the same field of endeavor, polymer solid electrolytes, discloses a composite polymer electrolyte film comprising poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO) as an ion conducting polymer, LiTFSI as a lithium salt, and lithium sulfonamide functionalized poly(methyl methacrylate) polymer nanoparticles (see e.g. the section entitled “Composite Solid All-Polymer Electrolytes Based on Poly(ethylene oxide) and Single-Ion Polymeric Nanoparticles” on page 54358; see also Figure 2).
Porcarelli discloses a PEO:LiTFSI in a weight ratio of 75:25 and polymer particle loadings of 10, 20, 30, and 50% by weight based on the total composite, identified respectively as PEO-NP10, PEO-NP20, PEO-NP30, and PEO-NP50 (see e.g. Figure 2 and page 54358, paragraph beginning “For this purpose”). For example, PEO-NP10 contains 10% by weight polymer particles. The remaining 90% by weight consists of PEO and LiTFSI in the disclosed 75:25 weight ratio. It can be calculated:
PEO = 90% x 0.75 = 67.% by weight
LiTFSI = 90% x 0.25 = 22.5% by weight
Thus, the PEO-NP10 electrolyte comprises 67.5% by weight ion conducting polymer, 22.5% by weight lithium salt, and 10% by weight polymer particles.
Porcarelli discloses specific points within the ranges claimed by the instant application, thereby anticipating the claimed ranges. In the case where the prior art teaches a point within the claimed range, the claim is anticipated. See MPEP 2131.03 (I).
Porcarelli also teaches that polymer solid electrolytes in this composition demonstrate excellent battery cell performance (see e.g. "Composite Solid All-Polymer Electrolytes Based on Poly(ethylene oxide) and Single-Ion Polymeric Nano particles" section on page 54358 paragraph beginning with "Next, the" of Porcarelli). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the polymer slid electrolyte of Toshinobu et al. such that the polymer solid electrolyte comprises 45 to 95% by weight of the ion conducting polymer, 2 to 50% by weight of the lithium salt, and 2 to 35% by weight of the polymer particles as taught by Porcarelli et al. in order to have a polymer solid electrolyte with excellent battery cell performance as suggested by Porcarelli.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure:
Deng et al. (CN-110994014-A)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 pm EST.
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, TONG GUO can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/J.J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights