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 § 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.
Claims 21-40 are 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 21 recites “nonfibrillizable binder”. The plain meaning of the term is a binder not capable of being fibrillized. The term is used in a manner that is inconsistent with that plain meaning, stating that the nonfibrillizable binder can be various binders capable of being fibrilized1. While an Applicant is welcome to be its own lexicographer, use of a term in a manner different than its understood meaning requires clear and unambiguous redefining of the term. The specification does not describe what is meant by “nonfibrillizable binder” in any way, however, except to list various binders that may be used as the binder. Thus, because the term “nonfibrillizable binder” is used to mean something different than its plain meaning, but Applicant hasn’t clearly dexcribed what that different meaning is, the term as used in this application is found indefinite. Because claims 31-40 all ultimately depend from claim 31, they are indefinite for this same reason.
Further, claim 21 recites “non-stick base”, which is understood to be a relative term. The as-filed disclosure does not provide any way for determining what kind of material constitutes a non-stick base.
Further regarding claim 23, the term “chemical resistant” is not understood since it doesn’t describe what type of chemicals it is resistant to, or how one can determine when a material is sufficiently unreactive with those chemicals to be considered resistant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 21, 23, 26, 28, 32, 33, and 35-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Korean Patent Publication No. KR 10-2333850 to Shin et al, using the machine translation included in Applicant’s IDS filing of 11/4/2024 (“Shin”). Regarding claims 21, 26, 28, 32, 33, and 38 Shin discloses a method of making a free-standing lithium sulfide electrolyte composition and all-solid lithium ion batteries made using them. The method involves mixing a solvent, a binder, and a sulfide electrolyte to create a slurry; casting the slurry onto a treated polyethylene terephthalate substrate; drying; and peeling the electrolyte layer from the substrate. The solvent in some embodiments is xylene, binder in some embodiments is PVDF, and the sulfide electrolyte is Li6PS5Cl in all working embodiments.
Further regarding claim 23, the Office finds that hydrophobically treated polyethylene terephthalate is sufficiently stable to some chemicals to be considered chemically resistant.
Further regarding claims 35-37, 39 and 40, the Office finds that because the electrolyte of Shin is made in a substantially similar manner to that described by Applicant, sufficient evidence exists to find that it also has the same properties as those described by Applicant.
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) 22, 24, 25, 27, 29-31, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin. Shin is applied as described above. Further regarding claim 22, Shin makes it clear that the slurry must be mixed at a specific RPM of a power mixer. Although it doesn’t expressly state that the mixer should be a planetary centrifugal mixer, the Office finds use of any commonly known mixer is obvious absent a showing of unexpected results.
Further regarding claims 24 Shin discloses that one surface of its polyethylene terephthalate substrate should be treated to make it hydrophobic. Although Shin does not disclose treating it with the recited materials, the Office notes that such materials are commonly known hydrophobic coatings to be applied to a surface and thus are considered to be obvious means of achieving the disclosed goal of Shin absent a showing of unexpected results.
Further regarding claim 25, Shin discloses that the amount of solvent should be chosen to be sufficient to dissolve the binder, but not so high that it leads to films that are not free standing. Thus, the Office finds the claimed range to be nothing more than the obvious product of routine experimentation with a known result effective variable.
Further regarding claim 27, Shin discloses a single method of drying that involves first drying in air at room temperature, followed by vacuum drying at elevated temperature. Absent a showing of unexpected results, however, such minor adjustments to a common drying practice are considered obvious.
Further regarding claim 29-31, Shin discloses that if too much binder is included in the electrolyte layer the result will be a layer with lower ion conductivity than desired, where too little binder will fail to produce a free-standing film. Thus, the claimed range is found to be nothing more than the obvious product of routine experimentation with a known result effective variable.
Further regarding claim 34, the recited species are similar to the specific material used in the working embodiments of Shin with a slight difference in stoichiometric ratio. However, the stoichiometry of the claimed species falls within the disclosed genus of materials used in Shin, thus being rendered obvious.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYATT P MCCONNELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7531. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm M-F.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/WYATT P MCCONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
1 See, e.g., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0154570 at paragraph [0047] describing PVDF as being easily fibrillated as but one example.
