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 .
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2023/0145927 A1) and further in view of Song (WO 2018/059492 A1).
Regarding claims 1-4, Suzuki teaches a composite solid electrolyte [0001] comprising a sulfide-based solid electrolyte [0033]. The composite electrolyte further comprises a polymer electrolyte comprising a polymer such as polyethylene oxide (as required by claim 2, [0062]) and a lithium imide salt such as LiTFSI [0061]. Suzuki fails to teach the claimed mass ratio between the polymer and the lithium imide salt. Song is analogous art to Suzuki because both teach solid-state batteries (Suzuki, [0001]; Song, title). Song teaches a composite solid electrolyte [0184] comprising a lithium salt and a polymer where the mass ratio between the two is (0.01 - 9) : 1 [0189], which corresponds with a mass ratio of 1% - 900%, which overlaps with all of the ranges claimed in claim 1, 3, and 4. When the mass ratio is in this range, the conductivity of the polymer composite is increased [0189]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to prepare Suzuki’s composite solid electrolyte with a mass ratio between the polymer and lithium salt taught by Song in order to achieve increased conductivity.
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki teaches that their composite solid electrolyte can be used in a solid-state battery [0015].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki and Song as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mimura (JP 6492181 B2). Suzuki and Song fail to teach the claimed volume ratio between the sulfide solid electrolyte and the polymer electrolyte. Mimura is analogous art to Suzuki because both discuss batteries (Suzuki [0001]; Mimura, title). Mimura teaches that the volume ratio of the inorganic solid electrolyte to the polymer electrolyte is 4-10 : 1 [0030]. This corresponds with a volume ratio to 80/20 – 91/9, which overlaps with the claimed range of 80/20 – 95/5. Mimura teaches that when the volume ratio is in this range, oxidation of the polymer electrolyte can be suppressed and the stability of the battery can be improved [0030]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to prepare modified Suzuki’s composite solid electrolyte where the volume ratio between the sulfide solid electrolyte and the polymer electrolyte is in the range taught by Mimura in order to prevent oxidation of the polymer electrolyte.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/R.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights