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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/584514, filed on June 9, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Note: Applicant observed that the citation of the primary reference, Kanada, in the headings for claims 1-15, 18 and 20 as well as claims 16, 17 and 19, which is given as “US 2022/004345 A1” and determining that this citation is erroneous, has correctly assumed that the reference, Kanada, is intended to be cited as “US 2022/0045345 A1.” As per request, the examiner confirms that “US 2022/0045345 A1” is the correct citation, and this will be reflected in this and future office actions. The examiner thanks the applicant for letting the Office know.
Claims 1-20 have been amended. In particular, claim 1 now recites for clarification the step of “immersing a solid electrolyte film, which comprises” instead of “a solid electrolyte, comprises” and that this is immersed “in a polar solvent” rather than “into a polar solvent.” Additionally, the step “analyzing a structure of the solid electrolyte film from which the solid electrolyte is removed” is amended such that “from” replaces the term “in.” Claim 3, dependent on claim 2, now recites “wherein the polar solvent comprises an alcohol with a carbon number of 4 or less” replacing “wherein the alcohol is an alcohol with a carbon number of 4 or less.” The other claims 2, and 4-20 are amended for grammatical clarity.
The applicant argues that Kanada, (US 2022/0045345 A1) IDS 06/07/2024, fails to teach immersing [dissolving] the solid electrolyte film in a polar solvent thereby effectively removing the solid electrolyte from the solid electrolyte film while leaving the binder structure of the solid electrolyte film intact (See Specification, Fig. 1). This allows the internal structure of the solid electrolyte film including the connectivity of the binder comprising the solid electrolyte film to be readily observed and analyzed.
However, Kanada merely discloses dipping an electrolyte membrane in a 2 M aqueous sulfuric acid solution or in distilled water to measure swelling of the electrolyte polymer membrane, which serves as a surrogate for the electrolyte of a redox flow battery but does not teach or suggest that the solid electrolyte is dissolved or removed from the electrolyte polymer membrane.
The secondary reference, Isojima (US 2022/0344710 A1) IDS 03/01/2024 does not cure the Kanada deficiencies, as it only discloses a solid electrolyte-containing composition having a dispersion medium in which a polymer binder is dissolved but does not teach or suggest the claimed immersion step to remove the solid electrolyte from the solid electrolyte film. Neither Kanada nor Isojima teaches or suggests the analyzing step where the analysis is done on a structure of the solid electrolyte film from which the solid electrolyte is removed such that the binder structure remains intact after removal of the solid electrolyte. Because these combined teachings of Kanada and Isojima do not teach or suggest every feature of claim 1, claim 1 and dependent claims 2-15, 18 and 20 are not rendered obvious.
Additionally, claims 16, 17 and 19 depend on claim 1 with additional secondary references and because they incorporate all the elements of claim 1, these claims are not rendered obvious as well. (Applicant arguments/remarks 06/09/2026 pp. 6-9).
The examine counter argues that under broadest reasonable interpretation Isojima meets the limitations of claim1 whereby a solid electrolyte film which comprises a solid electrolyte and a binder (abs paragraph [0013] [0061] [0125]), and
after exposure to solvents the solid electrolyte is removed from the solid electrolyte film (paragraph [0070] [0230- [0233] where the inorganic solid electrolyte particles is not hindered by the presence of the polymer binder and it is conceived that the solubility of the polymer binder in the dispersion medium is reduced).
Moreover, the analysis at least in one embodiment, is performed on film thicknesses which meets the recited limitations of analyzing a structure of the solid electrolyte film from which the solid electrolyte is removed (paragraphs [0493] [0494] [0497]) and
further discloses where the solid electrolyte is removed where Isojima suggests that the binder can remain while other components of the film are removed (paragraph [0070] the time of forming a film of the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition, it is conceived that the solubility of the polymer binder in the dispersion medium is reduced, thereby exhibiting a function of solidifying or precipitating the polymer binder in a dissolved state into a particle shape). Therefore, it would be obvious to have modified the method of Kanada which analyzes an electrode membrane in a polar solvent with Isojima which discloses the removal of the solid electrolyte from the solid electrolyte film and analyzes the structure of the solid electrolyte film from which the solid electrolyte is removed. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner maintains the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-15, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanada (US 2022/0045345 A1) IDS 06/07/2024 in view of Isojima (US 2022/0344710 A1) IDS 03/01/2024.
Regarding Claim 1, Kanada discloses a method for analyzing a solid electrolyte film structure (abs, paragraphs [0070]- [0074] providing a method for measuring dimensional change rate in an electrolyte membrane used in a redox flow battery), comprising a step of:
immersing, in a 2M sulfuric acid aqueous solution or distilled water which are polar solvents and electrolyte membrane for a redox flow battery, containing a perfluorocarbon polymer having an ion exchange group (Figs. 1, 2 paragraphs [0070]- [0074] see also claims 1 and 2 dipping electrolyte membrane in either 2M sulfuric acid or distilled water.).
However, Kanada does not disclose a solid electrolyte film structure including a solid electrolyte and a binder and that this solid electrolyte is removed in the polar solvent from the solid electrolyte film which is then analyzed.
Isojima discloses a solid electrolyte film comprising a solid electrolyte and a binder (abs paragraphs [0013] [0061] [0125] where the metal element-containing compound forms a film where binder interacts with the metal element-containing compound formed film of the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition) and, also, after exposure to solvents, the solid electrolyte is removed from the solid electrolyte film (paragraphs [0070] [0230]-[0233] where the inorganic solid electrolyte particles is not hindered by the presence of the polymer binder and it is conceived that the solubility of the polymer binder in the dispersion medium is reduced where the dispersion medium may be a polar dispersion medium which dissolves the binder forming polymer and disperse the metal element-containing compound;). The structure of the solid electrolyte film, in which the solid electrolyte is removed, is then analyzed (paragraphs [0493] [0495] [0497] where film thicknesses are measured for various compositions using an SEM).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the disclosure of Kanada with the teachings of Isojima whereby a method of analyzing an electrode membrane or film, in this case, dimensional changes, by immersing it in a polar solvent, as disclosed by Kanada, would combine this with the method taught by Isojima as applied to analyzing a solid electrolyte film comprising a solid electrolyte and a binder which when immersed in a polar solvent, removes the solid electrolyte from the solid electrolyte film which is then analyzed.
A skilled artisan would determine to use such a method because various compositions can now be tested or analyzed as to their effects with a view to preventing battery overcharging or overdischarging (abs, paragraph [0005]) thus improving conductivity and cycle characteristics (paragraph [0072]) with improved designs (paragraph [0282]).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Kanada and Isojima disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and both Kanada and Isojima further disclose wherein the polar solvent comprises at least one of water (Kanada – paragraph [0072], Isojima – paragraph [0102]) or alcohol (Isojima – paragraph [0234]).
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, the combination of Kanada and Isojima disclose all the limitations of claims 2 and 3, respectively, and Isojima further discloses wherein the polar solvent comprises an alcohol with a carbon number of 4 or less (paragraph [0234] where methyl alcohol and ethyl alcohol have a carbon number of 4 or less) and ethyl alcohol (ethanol) is specifically disclosed (paragraph [0234]).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Kanada and Isojima disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Isojima further discloses wherein the solid electrolyte comprises at least one of a sulfide-based solid electrolyte, a halide-based solid electrolyte or an oxide-based solid electrolyte. (paragraph [0079] examples of inorganic solid electrolyte include (i) sulfide-based, (iii) halide-based and (ii) oxide-based).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Kanada and Isojima disclose all the limitations of claim 5 and Isojima further discloses wherein the sulfide-based solid electrolyte is represented by Formula 1: <Formula 1>La1Mb1Pc1Sd1Ae1wherein in Formula 1, L is an element selected from Li, Na, and K; M is an element selected from B, Zn, Sn, Si, Cu, Ga, Sb, Al, and Ge; A is an element selected from I, Br, Cl, and F; each of a1, b1, c1, d1 and e1 represents a compositional ratio of each element; and a ratio of a1:b1:c1:d1:e1 is 1 to 12 : 0 to 1 : 1 : 2 to 12 : 0 to 5.. (paragraph [0083] where similar ranges of ratios of the above elements are given for lists of compounds matching Formula 1 as recited).
MPEP 2131.03: Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping or touching the claimed range anticipated if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with “sufficient specificity”.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Kanada and Isojima disclose all the limitations of claim 5 and Isojima further discloses wherein the sulfide-based solid electrolyte is LPS-type sulfide containing sulfur and phosphorus, LPSCl-type sulfide, Li4-xGe1-xPxS4 (x is from 0.1 to 2), Li10±1MP2X12 (M=Ge, Si, Sn or Al, and X=S or Se), Li3.833Sn0.833As0.166S4, Li4SnS4, Li3.25Ge0.25P0.75S4, Li2S-P2S5, B2S3-Li2S, xLi2S-(100-x)P2S5 (x is from 70 to 80), Li2S-LiI-P2S5, Li2S-LiI-Li2O-P2S5, Li2S-LiBr-P2S5, Li2S-LiCl-P2S5, Li2S-Li2O-P2S5, Li2S-Li3PO4-P2S5, Li2S-P2S5-P2O5, Li2S-P2S5-SiS2, Li2S-P2S5-SnS, Li2S-P2S5-Al2S3, Li2S-GeS2, Li2S-GeS2-ZnS, Li2S-SiS2-Li3N, Li2S-SiS2-LiI, or Li2S-B2S3-LiI. (paragraphs [0088] [0455] where similar combination examples of raw materials used for sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolytes are listed, which are LPS-type sulfides containing sulfur and phosphorus; where LPS refers to Li – P – S based)
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Kanada and Isojima disclose all the limitations of claim 5 and Isojima further discloses wherein the halide-based solid electrolyte is represented by Formula 2: <Formula 2>Li6-3aMaBrbClcwherein in Formula 2, M is a metal other than Li, a is 0<a<2, b is 0≤b≤6, c is 0≤c≤6, and b+c=6. (paragraphs [0095]- [0097] lists compounds matching Formula 2 having a halogen atom including Cl and Br, has an ion conductivity of a metal belonging to Group 1 or Group 2 in the periodic table – includes other metals besides Li, and where the formula is similar to that recited.)
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Kanada and Isojima disclose all the limitations of claim 5 and Isojima further discloses wherein the oxide-based solid electrolyte is represented by Formula 3: <Formula 3>Li1+x+yAlxTi2-xSiyP3-yO12 wherein in Formula 3, x is 0≤ x ≤2 and y is 0≤ y ≤3. (paragraphs [0089]- [0093] lists compounds matching Formula 3 as recited by the claims).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Kanada and Isojima disclose all the limitations of claim 5 and Isojima further discloses wherein the oxide-based solid electrolyte is LLT-based solid electrolyte (paragraph [0092]) with a perovskite structure, LISICON (paragraph [0092]), LATP-based solid electrolyte, LAGP-based solid electrolyte, or phosphate-based solid electrolyte (paragraph [0093]).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Kanada and Isojima disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Isojima further discloses wherein the binder comprises a fibrous binder or a particulate binder (paragraph [0043] particulate).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Kanada and Isojima disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Isojima further discloses wherein the binder comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of:
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (paragraph [0164]), ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA), styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene (SEBS) (paragraph [0165]), styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) (paragraph [0165]), nitrile butadiene rubber (NBR) and hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubber (HNBR) (paragraphs [0163]- [0165]).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Kanada and Isojima disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Isojima further discloses wherein the polar solvent in the immersion step is supplied to achieve a concentration of the solid electrolyte to 10 weight % or less (paragraphs [0210] [0419] metal element-containing compound with a dispersion medium at a proportion of a solid content concentration of 10% by mass which appears to overlap the range as recited.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a concentration of the solid electrolyte in the range to 10% or less since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art One would have been motivated to use this amount for the purpose of having a small enough solid content in a test because the smaller the solid content reduction rate, the better the dispersion stability (paragraph [0469]).
Regarding Claims 14 and 15, the combination of Kanada and Isojima disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and while Kanada further discloses the immersing in water at 25 °C for 30 minutes where the relative dimensions of the electrolyte membrane in the X direction, Y direction and the Z direction are calculated (Figs. 1, 2 paragraph [0072]). Kanada does not explicitly disclose that the immersion step is
for a period of 5 minutes to 1 hour or for a period of 10 minutes to 1 hour.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use these recited time period limitations since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to use these time periods for the purpose of a critical and predictive measurement to test a configuration that is capable of suppressing deflection and lengthen the service life of the solid electrolyte film for a battery (paragraph [0073]).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Kanada and Isojima disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Isojima further discloses wherein the analyzing step is performed utilizing a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) image of the solid electrolyte film in which the solid electrolyte is removed (paragraph [0497] cross section of the solid electrolyte layer observed using a scanning electron microscope (SEM)).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Kanada and Isojima disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Isojima further discloses wherein the binder comprises at least one of ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) or styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene (SEBS) (paragraphs [0163]- [0165] list of examples of binder with hydrocarbon-based polymer) , and wherein the polar solvent comprises at least one of water or ethanol (paragraph [0265] where in at least one embodiment particle size diameter measurements are carried after extraction by a dispersion medium such as water (can also be methanol which is close to the solvent ethanol). The skilled artisan would use this technique in order to provide the desired particle diameter classification (paragraph [0265]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kanada (US 2022/0045345 A1) IDS 06/07/2024 and Isojima (US 2022/0344710 A1) IDS 03/01/2024 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka (CN104064785A) with machine translation.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Kanada and Isojima disclose all the limitations of claim 1 but do not disclose that the analyzing step comprises analyzing a frame formed by the binder after removal of the solid electrolyte from the solid electrolyte film comprising the solid electrolyte and the binder.
Tanaka discloses solid electrolyte membrane electrode assembly for a fuel cell resin frame (abs, paragraph [0002]). A resin frame is formed for the fuel cell that has a recess for providing a binder or adhesive on the contact surface abutting the electrolyte membrane electrode structure (Figs. 2, 3 paragraphs [0012] [0035] inner protrusion – 24a recess – 26a adhesive – 25).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the combination of Kanada/Isojima with the disclosure of Tanaka whereby a method for analyzing a solid electrolyte film structure would have a step of analyzing a frame that is formed by the binder after removing the solid electrolyte from the solid electrolyte film comprising the solid electrolyte and the binder.
The skilled artisan would consider this step because some configurations would have a frame formed by a binder because this binder/adhesive layer forming a frame is used to suppress the deformation of the solid electrolyte film structure caused by dimensional changes from wrinkles and reliably withstands the reaction force generated by drying and suppressing the overall deformation of the solid electrolyte film structure with the frame (paragraph [0061]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kanada (US 2022/0045345 A1) IDS 06/07/2024 and Isojima (US 2022/0344710 A1) IDS 03/01/2024 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang (KR20210050463A) IDS 03/01/2024 with machine translation.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Kanada and Isojima disclose all the limitations of claim 1 but do not disclose that the polar solvent selectively dissolves only the solid electrolyte, but not the binder.
Wang, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a recycling method for an oxide-based solid electrolyte (abs) and involves physical disassembly as part of the recycling process (Fig. 2 paragraph [0019] solid electrolyte layer – 40). In one part of the removal process, it is noted that the solid electrolyte layer is bonded with a binder (Fig.2 solid electrolyte layer – 40). In this case, there is a step of a cleaning process mainly to remove either the binder or the solid electrolyte from the treatment part (paragraph [0021]). Moreover, this process can be adjusted depending on the binder or binder formulation (paragraph [0020] solvent used in the wet process can be adjusted to dissolve organic material).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to use a technique in addition to that disclosed by the combination of Kanada and Isojima whereby a polar solvent selectively dissolves on the solid electrolyte but not the binder. The skilled artisan would consider this option because different batteries utilize different binders or different binder formulations and since the goal is to separate inorganic materials including a solid electrolyte and a binder by a polar solvent, this can be adjusted by the skilled artisan depending on the binder composition and the location (paragraph [0021] different binders or binder compositions in each layer).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kanada (US 2022/0045345 A1) IDS 06/07/2024 and Isojima (US 2022/0344710 A1) IDS 03/01/2024 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (KR20160085467A) IDS 06/07/2024 with machine translation.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Kanada and Isojima disclose all the limitations of claim 1 but do not disclose that the solid electrolyte film is fabricated by a dry process.
Lee discloses in the same field of endeavor, that a method for producing a solid electrolyte membrane can be fabricated by a dry process (abs, paragraph [0004]).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to have modified the combination of Kanada and Isojima to have the method for analyzing a solid electrolyte film to have this solid electrolyte film to be fabricated by a dry process. One would be motivated because the dry process, which is typical, is to separately produce the electrolyte structure or membrane in a free-standing state and then form the solid electrolyte film on the anode through a pressing process (paragraph [0004]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE K. SWIER whose telephone number is (571)272-4598. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 8:30 am - 5:30 pm PST.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/WAYNE K. SWIER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights