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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on 4/19/24, 8/28/24, and 4/23/25 have been considered by the examiner.
On the IDS dated 8/28/24, the NPL reference “International Search Report and Written Opinion of the ISA dated June 24, 2024, of the corresponding International Application No. PCT/KR2024/003698” is lined through and has not been considered because an English translation was not submitted.
On the IDS dated 4/23/25, the NPL reference “Korean Office action dated February 6, 2025” is lined through and has not been considered because an English translation was not submitted.
These IDS references fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because they do not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. They have been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because applicants are required to furnish a drawing of the invention where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented (37 CFR 1.81). The drawings as submitted fail to achieve that purpose because they do not show anything related to the claimed elastic sheet or the claimed battery comprising the claimed elastic sheet. The following reference characters in the drawings are not mentioned in the description: 400’ and 403’. The drawings also do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description: 20. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 mentioned in the description: 20. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to for the following reasons. The first sentence reiterates the title. Additionally, the words “the same” in the first sentence are legal phraseology. Also, the phrase “and a binder, positioned on outside of at least one of the positive electrode and the negative electrode” in the fourth sentence is ambiguous, unclear whether the binder alone is positioned outside of at least one electrode or the whole elastic sheet with a plate-shaped polymer and a binder is positioned outside of at least one electrode. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP) § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0031] lacks closing quotation marks.
Paragraph [0040] misspells “solid-state.”
Paragraph [0066] omits units for molecular weight.
Paragraph [0087] spells the same phrase “nano particles” and “nanoparticles.”
Paragraph [00101] has spacing errors including not spacing between a word and a following opening parenthesis and combining “x is” into “xis.”
Paragraph [00104] omits subscripts in chemical formulas.
Paragraph [00109] omits the space between numbers and their unit of measurement.
Paragraph [00135] omits subscripts in chemical formulas.
Paragraph [00157] uses an ambiguous unit of quantity (M). Molarity, the usual unit noted by M (moles per liter), does not make much sense in the context of lithium salt within a solid electrolyte.
Paragraph [00161] recites a probably erroneous chemical formula (FSO22N-).
Paragraph [00162] uses inconsistent spacing conventions when naming organic compounds.
Paragraph [00230] does not thoroughly disclose the nail material, simply describing a “stainless nail.”
The notation in Table 1 requires clarification. If the dash in front of temperature values denotes a negative temperature, the same dash in front of entries in the cycle-life column makes the data illogical.
Appropriate correction is required. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The use of the term THINKY, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce (US trademark serial number 79035366), has been noted in this application (¶ [00183]). The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: all references to the claimed aspect ratios are applied to the polymer within the sheet instead of the sheet itself. The claimed sheet aspect ratio is never described in the specification. Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of examination, the aspect ratio recited in this claim is interpreted as applying to the polymer-shaped particle instead of the elastic sheet as assembled in a battery, as is the case in all the taught examples.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 12 is 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.
Claim 12 depends from claim 10. The thickness of the elastic sheet, claimed as a range from about 0.3 µm to 2.5 µm, is indefinite because it includes embodiments that contradict the claimed values in claim 10, which specifies a plate-shaped polymer thickness between about 0.2 µm and about 4 µm. It appears that the claimed range should be for the claimed plate-shaped polymer; not the elastic sheet.
For purposes of examination, claim 12 is interpreted as the thickness of the plate-shaped polymer as included in the battery described in claim 10. The claimed elastic sheet thickness contradicts the specification (¶ [00187]), which teaches an elastic sheet thickness of 120 µm in the assembled battery. Furthermore, all the examples teach an aspect ratio with respect to the plate-shaped polymer, not the elastic sheet as assembled in the battery. It is recommended the language of this claim be amended to clearly state whether the term “thickness” refers to the plate-shaped polymer or the elastic sheet as included in an assembled battery.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8 and 10 of Ha et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,728,522 B2).
Regarding claim 7, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the recited thickness and aspect ratio ranges of claim 7 overlap with those listed in claim 8 of Ha and its parent claims. A claimed range overlapping with one taught in the prior art is considered a prima facie case of obviousness and unsuitable for patenting (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 9, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the recited weight ratio range of claim 9 overlaps with the weight ratio range taught in claim 10 of Ha and its parent claims. A claimed range overlapping with one taught in the prior art is considered a prima facie case of obviousness and unsuitable for patenting (MPEP § 2144.05).
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of Ha et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,728,522) in view of Ootsuki et al. (US Patent Publication US2020/0377690A1).
Regarding claim 8, Ha teaches a coating for a rechargeable lithium battery comprising flake-shaped polyethylene particles having an average particle size of 1-8 µm and aspect ratios ranging from 2.5-4.5, inorganic particles, and a binder, but does not teach any specific inorganic particles to include in the electrode coating layer, but Ootsuki et al. teach mixing inorganic particles such as boehmite, aluminum hydroxide, and magnesium hydroxide into a resin sheet as “endothermic agents” to absorb heat and prevent a battery igniting (¶ [0084]-[0086], [0232]). To increase a battery’s fire resistance, one skilled in the art would have considered it obvious to select inorganic particles composed of boehmite, aluminum hydroxide, or magnesium hydroxide.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 112(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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (Korean Application Publication KR 102833664 B1 and US Patent Application Publication 2021/0074980A1).
Citations referring to Kim are stated with respect to the US document, but they apply to corresponding specifications taught in the Korean document as submitted.
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches an elastic sheet comprising plate-shaped polymers (claim 16, ¶ [0115], [0186]-[0187]) with aspect ratios of 1 to 5 (¶ [0123]) having a thickness between 0.2 µm and 4 µm (¶ [0123]) and a binder (¶ [0186]).
Regarding Claim 2, Kim teaches plate-shaped polymer particle aspect ratios of 4.5 to 1 (¶ [0123]). For purposes of examination, “flake-shaped” is considered synonymous with “plate-shaped.”
Regarding Claim 3, Kim teaches plate-shaped particles with a thickness of about 0.3 µm to about 2.5 µm (¶ [0124]).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim teaches a plate-shaped polymer comprising polyethylene particles (¶ [0023]).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim teaches plate-shaped polymers having a size ranging from 1 µm to 8 µm (¶ [0121]). For purposes of claim interpretation, the term “size” as quoted in claim 5 refers to the longest length used to define the aspect ratio.
Regarding Claim 7, Kim teaches a polymer sheet further comprising inorganic ceramic particles (¶ [0126]-[0130]).
Regarding Claim 8, Kim teaches an elastic sheet wherein ceramics comprise boehmite, magnesium hydroxide, or combinations thereof (¶ [0129]).
Claims 1 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ha et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0014078A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ha teaches an elastic sheet comprising a plate-shaped polymer (Claim 1, ¶ [0007]) with an aspect ratio of about 1 to about 5 (Claim 3, ¶ [0009]) and a thickness of about 0.2 µm to about 4 µm (Claim 4, ¶ [0010]) and a binder (¶ [0011]).
Regarding Claim 6, Ha teaches an elastic sheet for an all-solid-state battery wherein an amount of the plate-shaped polymer is within 10% wt to about 70% wt based on a total weight of the elastic sheet (¶ [0050]-[0051]). Claim 10 of Ha teaches the weight ratio of the sum of flake-shaped particles and inorganic particles to the binder ranges from 80:20 to 99:1. Claim 11 of Ha teaches the weight ratio of the flake-shaped particles to the inorganic particles ranges from 95:5 to 10:90. Within these limitations, scenarios exist which satisfy the limitations of examined claims and reference claims. If an elastic sheet composition is 50% wt flake-shaped particles, 37.5% wt inorganic particles, and 12.5% wt binder, the weight ratios of all claims are satisfied, and Claim 6 is anticipated. The fact that Claim 6 states “based on a total weight of the elastic sheet” and depends on Claim 1, which states “the elastic sheet comprising,” broadens the scope of this claim to include additives beyond plate-shaped polymers and a binder.
Regarding Claim 7, Ha teaches an elastic sheet comprising a ceramic [Claim 9, ¶ [0015]-[0016]).
Regarding Claim 8, Ha teaches an elastic sheet wherein the ceramic comprises magnesium hydroxide and boehmite and combinations thereof (¶ [0052]).
Regarding Claim 9, Ha teaches an elastic sheet wherein the mixing ratio of the plate-shaped polymer and ceramic is in the range of about 9:1 to about 7:3 by weight ratio (¶ [0051]).
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.
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 10, 13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US Patent Publication 2023/0307792A1) in view of Yoshito and Taichi (PCT Publication WO 2014/136813 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Cho teaches an all-solid-state battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a solid electrolyte layer between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, and an elastic sheet on an outside of at least one of the positive electrode or the negative electrode (Claim 17). The elastic sheet comprises an acrylate resin, a plurality of hollow particles, and a plurality of elastic particles instead of the plate-shaped particles and a binder. Cho states the reason for including a sheet composed of elastic particles as alleviating electrolyte stress during manufacturing and while electrodes expand and contract as ions intercalate and de-intercalate.
Cho does not teach plate-shaped particles; no shape is taught for elastic particles (¶ [0004]-[0007], [0045]). Cho teaches elastic particles may be particles made of a polymer having elasticity including polymers derived from olefins (¶ [0051], [0053]), polyethylene being an example.
Yoshito and Taichi teaches coating films for battery electrodes or separators exploiting the viscoelasticity of certain plate-shaped polymer particles (¶ [0023]). As more stress is applied, the viscoelastic modulus falls, resulting in increased film pliability and less stress on the electrode or separator (¶ [0007], [0016]-[0017]). Yoshito and Taichi further teach viscoelastic particles preferably having shape anisotropy because of the ability for anisotropic particles to have a dominant orientation in the film, improving the film’s stress relaxation ability over films containing randomly-oriented anisotropic particles (¶ [0021]-[0022]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art would at the time of filing to substitute the plate-shaped particles of Yoshito and Taichi in place of the generic elastic particles of Cho to obtain a viscoelastic protective coating film with coordinated orientation of constituent particles to improve viscoelasticity. This substitution of one known component for another with the expectation of predictable results to one skilled in the art is considered a prima facie case of obviousness (Manual of Patent Examination Procedure § 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding Claim 13, Cho teaches the polymer of the elastic sheet comprising a plurality of hollow particles and a plurality of elastic particles (claim 1).
Cho does not teach polyethylene as a material for hollow or elastic particles.
However, Yoshito and Taichi teach elastic sheets including polyethylene particles (¶ [0017]), citing the advantages of polyethylene’s viscoelasticity in providing both stress/strain management and heat resistance (¶ [0007]-[0008]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art would at the time of filing to include polyethylene particles as an alternative for hollow particles and elastic particles because of the reasonable expectation of polyethylene’s viscoelastic properties enabling it to alleviate stress and strain on battery components.
Regarding claim 16, Cho teaches an all-solid state battery comprising ceramics (¶ [0058]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 17, Cho teaches an all-solid state battery comprising ceramics further comprising boehmite (¶ [0059]).
Regarding claim 18, Cho teaches an all-solid state battery wherein a mixing ratio of the polymer particles and ceramic is in the range of about 9:1 to about 7:3 by weight (¶ [0052], [0060]).
Claims 10-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Patent Publication 2021/0074980A1) in view of Cho et al. (US Patent Publication 2023/0307792A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Kim teaches a battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an elastic sheet comprising plate-shaped polymers (claim 16, ¶ [0115], [0186]-[0187]) with aspect ratios of about 1 to about 5 (¶ [0123]) having a thickness between about 0.2 µm and about 4 µm (¶ [0123]) and a binder (¶ [0186]).
Kim does not teach using a solid-state electrolyte.
Cho teaches an all-solid-state battery comprising a solid electrolyte, further teaching advantages of solid-state electrolytes for lithium-ion batteries including ease of manufacture and lowered risks of fire and explosions (¶ [0003]).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the time of filing to substitute the liquid electrolyte taught by Kim with the solid electrolyte of Cho in order to make it easier to produce the battery and make a safer battery having lowered risks of fire and explosions.
Regarding Claim 11, Kim teaches a battery wherein the aspect ratio of the plate-shaped polymers ranges from about 1.1 to about 4.5 (¶ [0123]).
Regarding Claim 12, Kim teaches a battery wherein the thickness of plate-shaped particles with a thickness of about 0.3 µm to about 2.5 µm (¶ [0123]).
Regarding Claim 13, Kim teaches a battery wherein the plate-shaped polymer of the elastic sheet comprises polyethylene particles (¶ [0023], [0115]-[0117]).
Regarding Claim 14, Kim teaches a battery wherein the plate shaped polymer has a size in the range of 1 µm to 8 µm (¶ [0121]).
Regarding Claim 16, Kim teaches a battery wherein the elastic sheet further comprises a ceramic (¶ [0126], [0186]).
Regarding Claim 17, Kim teaches a battery wherein the ceramic comprises magnesium hydroxide and boehmite (¶ [0129]).
Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha et al. (US Patent Publication 2020/0014078A1) in view of Cho et al. (US Patent Publication 2023/0307792A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Ha teaches a battery comprising a positive electrode (¶ [0103]), a negative electrode (¶ [0104]), and an elastic sheet comprising plate-shaped polymers (¶ [0031]) with aspect ratios of about 1 to about 5 (¶ [0040]) having a thickness between about 0.2 µm and about 4 µm (¶ [0041]) and a binder (¶ [0043]).
While Ha does not teach using a solid-state electrolyte, Cho teaches an all-solid-state battery comprising a solid electrolyte, further teaching advantages of solid-state electrolytes for lithium-ion batteries including ease of manufacture and lowered risks of fire and explosions (¶ [0003]).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the time of filing to substitute the liquid electrolyte taught by Ha with the solid electrolyte of Cho to make a safer, easier to produce battery.
Regarding Claim 11, Ha teaches a battery wherein the aspect ratio of plate-shaped particles is in the range from 1 to 5 (Claim 3, ¶ [0040]).
Regarding Claim 12, Ha teaches a battery wherein the thickness of the plate-shaped polymers is about 0.3 µm to about 2.5 µm (Claim 4, ¶ [0041]).
Regarding Claim 13, Ha teaches a battery wherein the plate-shaped polymer of the elastic sheet comprises polyethylene particles (Claim 1, ¶ [0031]-[0038]).
Regarding Claim 14, Ha teaches a battery wherein the plate shaped polymer of the elastic sheet has a size of about 1 µm to about 8 µm (Claim 1, ¶ [0038]).
Regarding Claim 15, Ha teaches an elastic sheet for an all-solid-state battery wherein an amount of the plate-shaped polymer is within 10% wt to about 70% wt based on a total weight of the elastic sheet (¶ [0050]-[0051]). Claim 10 of Ha teaches the weight ratio of the sum of flake-shaped particles and inorganic particles to the binder ranges from 80:20 to 99:1. Claim 11 of Ha teaches the weight ratio of the flake-shaped particles to the inorganic particles ranges from 95:5 to 10:90. While Ha’s ratios do not explicitly teach an amount of the plate-shaped polymer with respect to a total weight of the elastic sheet, total elastic sheet compositions such as 50% wt flake-shaped particles, 37.5% wt inorganic particles, and 12.5% wt binder satisfy the instant claim and Claims 10 and 11 of Ha.
Regarding Claim 16, Ha teaches a battery wherein the elastic sheet further comprises a ceramic (Claim 9, ¶ [0049]-[0053]).
Regarding Claim 17, Ha teaches a battery wherein the ceramic comprises boehmite and magnesium hydroxide (¶ [0052]).
Regarding Claim 18, Ha teaches a battery wherein a mixing ratio of the plate-shaped polymer and the flame-retardant ceramic is about 9:1 to about 7:3 by weight (Claim 11, ¶ [0051]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Braeckmans et al. (US 2022/0403317 A1) teach compositions of composite polymer sheets from polymer microparticles and binding resins and methods of forming them. Nanoparticles and microparticles of any shape (¶ [0048]-[0050]) comprising ceramic and polymer particles (¶ [0054]-[0056]) may be embedded in a structure such as a polymer sheet comprising polyacrylate (¶ [0073]).
Sun et al. (WO 2024/130502 A1) teach a battery structure including a sheet-shaped deformable polymer buffer structure (¶ [0014], ¶ [0130]-[0131]) and a filler separate from the buffer comprising a magnesium hydroxide or aluminum hydroxide flame retardant (¶ [0013], [0122]). The buffer may include boehmite as a chemical stabilizer (¶ [0122]).
Kim et al. (WO 2024/054017 A1) teach coating layers on electrodes made from 0.3 µm-3 µm-sized particles (¶ [0009], [0016]) composed of polyethylene derivatives including polyethylene oxide, polyethylene sulfide, and polyethylene tetraphthalate (¶ [0014]) dispersed in a polymer binder in a 1:9 to 5:5 binder/polymer weight ratio (¶ [0016]).
Li et al. (CN 115241606 A) teach a polymer matrix composite coating on a lithium battery separator comprising low molecular weight (preferably below 1,200, units not stated) polyethylene microspheres (¶ [0012]) ranging in size from 50 nm to 1 µm (¶ [0015]), inorganic ceramic particles including boehmite (¶ [0013]) combined with polymers in a 5:4 weight ratio (¶ [0029]), and meta-aramid fiber base material (¶ [0005]).
Ha et al. (US 2020/0350574 A1) teach a negative electrode functional layer comprising flake-shaped polyethylene particles (claim 1) with aspect ratios ranging from 1 to 5 (claim 12), thicknesses ranging from 0.2 μm to 4 μm (claim 13), and mixed with inorganic particles in an acrylated styrene-based rubber binder (claim 14, ¶ [0135]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R BELNAP whose telephone number is (571) 272-0114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursday 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291.
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.
/JONATHAN R BELNAP/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights