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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/17/2025 and 06/12/2026 are considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statements filed on 08/20/2024 and 07/10/2025 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation, “the solid-liquid composite electrolyte further comprises at least one of an additive, a diluent, and a polymer” which is recited in claim 1 is unclear. The dependent claims in the instant application and the disclosure in as filed specification (Tables 2-4) recite further limitations and embodiments of the solid-liquid composite electrolyte where only one of an additive, a diluent , or a polymer is used and not combinations of the three elements. The limitation should be corrected to more accurately reflect the disclosure. The phrase “the solid-liquid composite electrolyte further comprises at least on of an additive, a diluent, and a polymer” should read “the solid-liquid composite electrolyte further comprises at least on of an additive, a diluent, or a polymer”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 13-15, 19, 21, 25, and 29-31 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.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 13-15, 19, 21, and 25, the term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claims 29-31, claim 29 recites the limitation "a composite electrolyte film of claim 1” in the last two lines of claim 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In light of the as filed specifications (page 31 lines 1-9), the quoted limitation appears to refer to “a composite electrolyte film comprising the solid-liquid composite electrolyte of claim 1”. Claims 30 and 31 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 29.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of co-pending Application No. 19/225724 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following.
Regarding claim 1 of the instant application, claim 1 of the co-pending application recites a solid-liquid composite electrolyte comprising a sulfide-based solid electrolyte and a liquid electrolyte including a salt and organic solvent. Claim 15 of the co-pending application further recited that the organic solvent of the liquid electrolyte comprises a fluorinated organic solvent that dissolves the salt. Claim 17 of the co-pending application further recites that the liquid electrolyte further comprises a nitrogen-containing organic solvent compound. This additional nitrogen-containing organic solvent compound serves as a stabilizer (page 44 lines 8-16 of the co-pending application’s specifications) which meets the limitation of “a diluent” recited in claim 1 of the instant applications.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(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, 7, 9, 12, 16, 22-24, and 27-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et. al (US 2019/0260077 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a secondary battery [0001] which includes a hybrid-solid electrolyte (solid-liquid composite electrolyte) which contains a solid and liquid portion [0005]. The solid portion of the electrolyte contains a polymer and an ion conductive ceramic which is described as lithium sulfide, sodium sulfide, or a combination [0018]. The liquid can contain an organic solvent [0027] and a lithium salt or sodium salt [0025]. The liquid is also referred to as an ionic liquid [0028], and can be N-methyl-N-propylpyrrolidinium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (fluorinated organic solvent) [0030]. The solid-liquid composite electrolyte taught by Kim contains a polymer [0062]. The limitations of claim 1 of the instant application do not specify what the necessary characteristics or distinguishing features of the additive, diluent or polymer are. Therefore, the examiner has interpreted the claim in such a way that a referenced polymer can be taken to correspond to the claimed additive or the claimed polymer.
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches all the limitations of claim 1 described above. Kim also teaches lithium and sodium salt embodiments which when present in solution will inherently contain a lithium or sodium cation when in solution [0026]. The possible anions include Cl−, CH3COO−, NO3−, BF4−, ClO4−, SO42−, and, PF6− or a combination thereof [0029].
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Kim further teaches that a combination of non-aqueous organic solvents can be used in the liquid electrolyte [0027]. The embodiments of the organic solvent include a carbonate-based solvent, an ester-based solvent, an ether-based solvent, a ketone-based solvent, an alcohol-based solvent, and an aprotic solvent [0027].
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Kim also teaches that the electrolyte contains a ceramic solid electrolyte with high ion conductivity [0012]. Kim further teaches that this solid ceramic portion of the electrolyte may contain an oxide based material [0016-0017].
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Kim also teaches that the sulfide-based ceramic particle [0016] are present in the form of particles in the composite electrolyte [0038]. The hybrid film which is the solid portion of the electrolyte [0014] is impregnated with the liquid electrolyte so that the liquid electrolyte is absorbed into the pores between the particles [0024].
Regarding claims 22-24, Kim teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Kim also teaches that the polymer in the electrolyte can be a polyacrylonitrile-based polymer [0019].
Regarding claims 27-28, Kim teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Kim also teaches that the polymer in the composite electrolyte [0014] which is capable of absorbing the liquid electrolyte [0020]. The sulfide solid ceramic material is present as a solid [0038] and the polymer is present in the electrolyte between the solid particles [0038].
Regarding claims 29 and 31, Kim teaches a secondary battery [0040] with the hybrid solid (semi-solid) electrolyte described above that is interposed between the cathode (positive electrode) and the anode (negative electrode) which are also present in the battery [0040]. The positive electrode may contain an active material including a lithium transition metal oxide, LiFePO4, [0043], and the negative electrode may contain lithium metal [0043].
Regarding claim 30, Kim teaches all of the limitations of claim 29 as described above. Kim also teaches that the solid-liquid composite electrolyte is between the positive electrode and negative electrode [0040]. The liquid portion of the electrolyte is impregnated in the solid liquid electrolyte [0015]. Kim also teaches that that the liquid electrolyte reduces interfacial resistance between the electrode and the electrolyte [0038]. For the liquid electrolyte to reduce interfacial resistance between the electrode and electrolyte, it would necessarily follow that the liquid electrolyte is in contact with and therefore at least partially impregnated with the electrode (the positive and/or negative electrode). Therefore, the disclosure of Kim reads on all the claim limitations of claim 30 in the instant application.
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 non-obviousness.
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 13-15, 19, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et. al (US 2019/0260077 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 13-15, Kim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Kim also teaches that the ratio of the hybrid film (solid electrolyte) and liquid electrolyte may be 60 to 100 parts by weight and 1 to 40 parts by weight, respectively [0033]. Next, Kim teaches that if the liquid electrolyte fraction is too high, the battery will have low thermal stability and high inflammability, and if the solid electrolyte fraction is too high, the interfacial resistance will be too high [0033]. Finally, Kim teaches that the preferred solid to liquid ratio may be 70 to 80 parts by weight and 10 to 20 parts by weight, respectively [0034]. At this ratio, Kim recited an optimum effects of improved ion conductivity of the hybrid film and enhanced the thermal stability of the liquid electrolyte. Kim does not teach what volume percentages (vol.%) of the solid and liquid components are present in the electrolyte.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the hybrid electrolyte of Kim by adjusting the volume fractions of the solid and liquid electrolyte components within the claimed ranges of about 10 vol.% to about 99.99 vol.% for the solid electrolyte and about 0.01 vol.% to 90 vol.% for the liquid electrolyte as stated in the instant application. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to change the volume fractions to optimize the thermal stability and ion conductivity of the battery. The motivation for changing the solid to liquid ratio is to optimize the operation of the battery.
Regarding claim 19, Kim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Kim also teaches that the solid portion of the soli-liquid composite electrolyte includes 60 to 100 parts by weight of a ceramic and 1 to 40 parts by weight of a polymer (claim 1, Kim). This solid portion of the electrolyte is 60 to 100 parts by weight of and the liquid portion is 1 to 40 parts by weight of the composite electrolyte (claim1, Kim). When the polymer is interpreted as corresponding to the claimed additive, the additive can be 0.5 – 97.5 wt. % (weight percent) based on the total weight of the additive and liquid electrolyte which contains an organic solvent and salt. This range overlaps the additive range of about 0.1 wt. % to about 10 wt. % recited in claim 19 of the instant application. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside similar ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 25, Kim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Kim also teaches that the solid portion of the soli-liquid composite electrolyte includes 60 to 100 parts by weight of a ceramic and 1 to 40 parts by weight of a polymer (claim 1, Kim). This solid portion of the electrolyte is 60 to 100 parts by weight of and the liquid portion is 1 to 40 parts by weight of the composite electrolyte (claim1, Kim). Kim teaches that the polymer can be 0.5 – 97.5 wt. % (weight percent) based on the total weight of the polymer and liquid electrolyte which contains an organic solvent and salt. This range overlaps the polymer range of about 1 wt. % to about 30 wt. % recited in claim 19 of the instant application. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside similar ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 2-6, 8, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et. al (US 2019/0260077 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cui et. al (US 2025/0105357 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above, but Kim does not expressly teach that the ionic conductivity of the salt and fluorinated organic solvent is greater than or equal to about 1×10-4 S/cm.
Cui teaches a lithium ion secondary battery [0174] with a solid electrolyte interface (SEI) [0193] where the liquid electrolyte comprises a fluorinated organic solvent and a lithium salt [0006]. Cui teaches that when using this type of electrolyte, the ionic conductivity will be greater than 2×10-3 S/cm (Figure 70b). The motivation to have high ionic conductivity in a battery is to improve the practicality of the cycling rates [0320].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the solid-liquid composite electrolyte of Kim with the teachings of Cui to have a liquid electrolyte with an ionic conductivity greater than or equal to 1×10-4 S/cm. for the purpose of improving the battery cycling rates and therefor the overall efficiency of the battery.
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Kim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above, but Kim does not expressly teach that the concentration of the salt in the fluorinated organic solvent is greater than or equal to about 0.1 m, and Kim does not teach that the liquid electrolyte has a concentration of about 0.5 m to about 20 m.
Cui teaches a lithium ion secondary battery [0174] with a solid electrolyte interface (SEI) [0193] where the liquid electrolyte comprises a fluorinated organic solvent and a lithium salt [0006]. Cui teaches two embodiment of this electrolyte where the concentration electrolyte is 1.75 m and 4.75 m (Table S1). The motivation for choosing these concentrations is to test a high and low concentration electrolyte [0180] to determine the best balance between having good ion solvation leading to high ionic conductivity and having favorable interfacial properties for preventing corrosion or build-up of a passivation layer in the battery structure [0180].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the solid-liquid composite electrolyte of Kim with the teachings of Cui to have a liquid electrolyte with a concentration of greater than or equal to about 0.1 m and about 0.5 m to about 20 m. Cui teaches concentrations which overlap the ranges recited in claims 3 and 8 of the instant application. In cases where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside similar ranges disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The motivation for adjusting the concentrations is to improve the efficiency of the battery as stated above.
Regarding claims 4-6, Kim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above, but Kim does not expressly teach that the fluorinated organic solvent is fluorinated ether, fluorinated phosphate, fluorinated carbonate or that the fluorinated organic solvent that dissolves the salt has a ratio of the number of F to the total number of H and F in the chemical formula of about 20% to about 60% or that fluorinated organic solvent is F3DEE, F4DEE, F5DEE, F6DEE.
Cui teaches a lithium ion secondary battery [0174] with a solid electrolyte interface (SEI) [0193] where the liquid electrolyte comprises a fluorinated organic solvent and a lithium salt [0006]. Cui teaches that the possible fluorinated organic solvents include fluorinated ethers [0355], a fluorinated phosphate [0399], and fluorinated carbonates [0399]. Specific embodiments taught by Cui include F3DEE, F4DEE, F5DEE, and F6DEE [0356]. Each of these specific embodiments meet the criteria of claim 5 of the instant application where the recited atom ratios are 21.4%, 28.5%, 35.7%, and 42.9% respectively. The motivation for using a fluorinated solvent of these characteristics is to develop a battery with high ionic conductivity, high stability, and fast activation [0345]. Cui teaches that F4DEE and F5DEE are the best performing solvents that achieve high ionic conductivity, good stability, and high Coulombic efficiency [0006].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the solid-liquid composite electrolyte of Kim with the teachings of Cui to have a liquid electrolyte with a fluorinated organic solvent from one of the group of F3DEE, F4DEE, F5DEE, and F6DEE. The motivation is to improve the function of the battery by tailoring the fluorination degree of the solvent for best performance as described above.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Kim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above, but Kim does not expressly teach the further addition of an additive form the list recited in claims 17 and 18 of the instant application.
Cui teaches a lithium ion secondary battery [0174] with a solid electrolyte interface (SEI) [0193] where the liquid electrolyte comprises a fluorinated organic solvent and a lithium salt [0006]. Cui teaches that one of more additive can be included in the electrolyte composition such as ethylene sulfite (ES), 1,3,2-di-oxathiolane 2,2-dioxide (DTD), and vinylene carbonate (VC) [580]. The motivation for including this additive it to further improve battery cell performance like increasing the cycle life of battery cells [0517].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the solid-liquid composite electrolyte of Kim with the teachings of Cui to have a liquid electrolyte with an additive of ES, DTD, VC, or a combination thereof. The purpose of including this additive is to improve the cycle life of the battery as referenced above.
Claims 10, 11 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2019/0260077) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fleutot et al. (US 2024/0266511).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches all of the limitation of claim 1 as described above. Kim also teaches that the sulfide hybrid solid electrolyte is made of particles [0038] and that the thickness of the electrolyte may be 10-150 µm and preferably 10-30 µm [0035]. Kim does not teach that the average particle diameter of the particles is about 0.1 µm to about 5 µm.
Fleutot teaches sulfide-based particles with a size of less than or equal to about 1 µm [0078]. Fleutot also teaches that these particles can be used in electrochemical applications. Particularly in solid-state batteries where the particles can be used in an electrolyte [0074].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sulfide-based solid electrolyte particles taught by Kim to have an average particle diameter of about 0.1 µm to about 5 µm as taught in Fleutot. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the particle size in this range to form electrolytes having a thicknesses in the range of 10-150 µm as taught in Kim for the practical construction of the battery. Furthermore, Fleutot teaches a particle size of the sulfide-based solid electrolyte particles which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside similar ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above, but Kim does not expressly teach that the sulfide-solid based electrolyte is an argyrodite-type sulfide-based solid electrolyte.
Fleutot teaches that the sulfide-based electrolyte particles can be an argyrodite-type [0032] compound where the formula is Li6PS5X where X is Cl, Br, or I [0037]. This argyrodite-type compound is referred to as an additive for the composite electrolyte [159]. Fleutot further teaches that the purpose of using additives (argyrodite-type particles) is to improve the dispersion of electrolyte and electrode materials that contain polymers [0007].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the solid-liquid composite electrolyte of Kim with the teachings of Fleutot to include improve the dispersion of the soli-liquid composite electrolyte as described above.
Regarding claim 26, Kim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Kim also teaches that the purpose of using the polymer is to disperse the solid particles in the electrolyte [0022] and bind them together [0038]. Kim does not explicitly teach that the solid-liquid electrolyte comprises a polymer that is cross-linked in the solid-liquid electrolyte.
Fleutot teaches that the electrolyte contains a polymer as a gel [0149] or in the form of a solid polymer electrolyte [0151]. These polymers can be cross-linked and choses specifically for their compatibility with other components of the electrochemical cell [0151]. Fleutot also teaches that a polymer is useful to bind solid electrolyte components together for the purpose of creating a flexible solid electrolyte and prevent cracking [0009].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the solid-liquid composite electrolyte of Kim with the teachings of Fleutot to include a cross-linked polymer in the composite electrolyte for the purpose of creating a well dispersed and durable solid electrolyte.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2019/0260077) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou et. al (US 2026/0155445).
Regarding claim 20 and 21, Kim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above, but Kim does not expressly teach that the sulfide-solid based electrolyte further includes a diluent of the list recited in claim 20 of the instant application, and Kim does not teach that the percent volume (vol. %) of the diluent is about 1 vol.% to about 80 vol.% based on the total volume of the diluent and liquid electrolyte.
Zhou teaches an electrochemical cell [0004] with an electrolyte composed of a solvating solvent, a non-solvating solvent (diluent) [0004], and an additive [0023]. One embodiment of the diluent is 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,2-trifluoroethyl ether (TFETFE) [0131]. Zhou also teaches that the diluent can make up about 1 vol. % to about 80 vol. % of the electrolyte [0019]. This electrolyte taught by Zhou is referred to as a “localized electrolyte” or LE [0131]. The benefit of using this LE instead of an electrolyte without a diluent is to improve ionic conductivity [0131] and lower production costs [0132].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the solid-liquid composite electrolyte of Kim with the teachings of Zhou to add a diluent to a liquid electrolyte for the purpose of improving the ionic conductivity. Furthermore, Zhou teaches a volume percent of diluent that overlaps the range claimed in claim 21 of the instant application. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside similar ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATALIE R ALTVATER whose telephone number is (571)270-3162. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 8:00 am - 4 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.
/N.R.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/REBECCA L GRUSBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights