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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the whole interlayer can electrochemically react with the positive electrode", as cited on remarks page 8 from the specification) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the working principle of the instant invention differs from that of the cited prior art (on remarks pg. 8), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Examiner notes that surface 79 of the reactive layer 49 of the composite separator/interlayer within Shen indeed prevents growth of lithium dendrites by blocking further deposition of lithium (Shen C6L1-8 and FIG 4 as cited below).
Further arguments on remarks page 8 are not persuasive because Shen indeed teach an electrochemical reaction (i.e., involving both lithium ions and electrons) within the battery between the lithium dendrite grown from the anode and the reactive layer within the composite separator/interlayer (exothermic reaction, see Shen C5L47-C6L10 as cited throughout below rejection) to thus couple the anode and interlayer (see Shen FIG 4 as cited below).
In response to applicant's argument that the combination of Fauteux with Shen is incompatible (remarks pgs. 9-11), the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Therefore, modifying the composite separator of Shen to also exhibit ionic conductivity in order to achieve the additional benefits taught toward by Fauteux, as explained on page 6 of the 05/06/2025 rejection, would have rendered the combination obvious. Within the multilayer composite separator/interlayer of Shen, including a polymer which imparts electronic conductivity and suppresses dendrite growth as taught by Fauteux would be expected to further aid the inventive goal of Shen, thus modified Shen would not only stop any dendrite at the separator via the exothermic reaction of polymer and lithium, but also aim to suppress dendrites from initiating. Redundant dendrite suppression resulting from the combination would be expected to improve battery safety.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 9, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 5427872 A) in view of Fauteux et al. (US 5434021 A, cited as relevant in the 02/12/2024 Office action).
Regarding claim 1, Shen teaches a rechargeable battery (secondary battery 40, C4L37 and FIG 3) comprising:
an anode (anode 44, C4L38 and FIGS 3-4);
a cathode (cathode 46, C4L36-37 and FIGS 3-4);
an electrolyte in contact with the anode and the cathode (liquid electrolyte imbibed within separators between electrodes, C4L53-55); and
an interlayer (composite reactive separator, C4L34-36 and FIG 3; made of separator sheets, C4L53-54; including inert separator 43/48 and reactive separator 42/49, C4L41-43, C5L67-C6L5 and FIGS 3-4) disposed between the anode and the cathode in the electrolyte (“electrodes are separated by a first sheet of porous separator inert to lithium and a second sheet of porous separator material reactive with lithium, both imbibed with liquid electrolyte”, C5L52-55; the multilayer composite separator 43+42 shown between anode 44 and cathode 46 in FIG 3), wherein
the anode and the interlayer are electronically isolated (the inert, porous separator is an organic polymer that is non-reactive with lithium; C5L22-23 – i.e., inert separator layer 43 is disposed adjacent the anode 44 per C4L41-42, and is between anode 44 and reactive separator layer 42 per FIG 3) and thermodynamically configured to allow growth of one or more dendrites (exothermic reaction of separator with dendrite tip, Abstract; see also C5L54-57 as cited below) in one direction from the anode (dendrite 70 will form at surface 71 of anode 44, C5L645-66 and FIG 4) to the interlayer (dendrite 73 will grow outwardly to the first surface 75 of the inert separator 48, C5L66-67 and FIG 4) during charging (as the cell is cycled, C5L64-65) to electronically couple the anode to the interlayer (dendrite 73 penetrates separator 48, C5L67-C6L1; dendrite 77 continues to grow until the tip 74 of the dendrite contacts the first surface 79 of the reactive separator 49, C6L1-4; see FIG 4), wherein
cations present in the electrolyte (electrolyte comprises a solution of an ionized lithium salt, C5L29-30) move (in a highly polar solvent, C5L30) from the cathode to the anode during charging (known in the art of rechargeable lithium ion batteries, see also C1L56-60: lithium ions undergo a de-intercalation reaction at the cathode during charge), wherein
the interlayer is configured to electrochemically react (second separator exothermically reacts with lithium, C5L54-57; see also C6L3-5) with the cations from the cathode present in the electrolyte (lithium ions per above citations, i.e. C1L56-60: lithium ions undergo a de-intercalation reaction at the cathode during charge; see also C5L29-30) upon formation of the electronic coupling between the anode and the interlayer through the one or more dendrites which electronically couple the anode and the interlayer (dendrite connection from anode to separator layers, FIG 4), thereby inhibiting the growth of the one or more dendrites in a direction from the interlayer to the cathode (tip 74 of the lithium dendrite will react with the separator 49 such that the local heat created will locally melt the separator 49 to form a non-porous plug 76 which will seal the pores of the separator and physically block further growth of the dendrite 77, C6L1-10; dendrites do not continue to grow towards cathode direction per FIGS 3-4).
Shen fails to teach the interlayer is configured to be electronically conductive.
Fauteux is analogous in the art of rechargeable battery interlayers and teaches rechargeable battery 10 having anode 12, cathode 14, electrolyte 16, and surface layer 18 (Fauteux C3L49-52) with surface layer 18 serving as an interlayer between anode and cathode (Fauteux FIG 1), where this interlayer 18 has both ionic conductivity and electronic conductivity (Fauteux abstract, C2L49-53, C4L10-15, C4L45-57). Fauteux teaches electronic conductivity of this interlayer being necessary to uniformly disperse an electrical field from the electrode/electrolyte interface toward and into the electrolyte so that lithium ions will, conversely, be attracted back to and through the interlayer back into the anode in a uniform orientation, to thus increase cycle life of the rechargeable battery (Fauteux C4L24-45). Fauteux teaches the interlayer being made of copolymer of polyvinylnaphthalene and polyethylene oxide in order to exhibit ionic conductivity as a result of the polyethylene oxide as well as electronic conductivity due to the formation of naphthalene radical anions upon contact of the polyvinylnaphthalene with the anode (Fauteux C4L8-14), or made of other compounds which exhibit both ion and electronic conductivity are also contemplated for use such as other polynuclear aromatic structures, other than naphthalene (Fauteux C4L17-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the interlayer of Shen to also exhibit electrical conductivity in addition to ionic conductivity as taught by Fauteux to achieve the benefits including increased cycle life of the battery.
Thereby, claim 1 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 5, modified Shen teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and teaches interlayer comprises an active material layer which is electronically non-conductive (inert separator 43, Shen C5L23).
Additionally, as taught by Fauteux applied to Shen in rejection of claim 1 above, in a modified interlayer being of composite material having both ionic conductivity and electronic conductivity, only part of the composite layer has electronic conductivity while the other part has ionic conductivity (e.g., exhibits ionic conductivity as a result of the polyethylene oxide, electronic conductivity due to the formation of naphthalene radical anions upon contact of the polyvinylnaphthalene with anode; Fauteux C4L10-17), such that the ionically conductive portion of the composite interlayer does not need to impart the electronic conductivity. Thus, claim 5 is obvious over modified Shen.
Regarding claim 7, modified Shen teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and teaches the interlayer is porous (composite separator including a first sheet of porous separator inert to lithium and a second sheet of porous separator material reactive with lithium; Shen C4L35-36, C4L52-55).
Regarding claim 9, modified Shen teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and teaches the interlayer comprises at least one electronically conductive medium, wherein the electronically conductive medium comprises conductive polymer (any polymer/copolymer which exhibits ionic conductivity, electronic conductivity and the ability to obtain chemical equilibrium between the surface layer and the anode, are contemplated for use, Fauteux C2L37-41; electronic conductivity due to the formation of naphthalene radical anions upon contact of the polyvinylnaphthalene with anode, Fauteux C4L10-15 – as applied to modify Shen in regards to claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 14, modified Shen teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and teaches the interlayer is configured to comprise a binder comprising polyethylene oxide (layer preferably comprises copolymer of polyvinylnaphthalene and polyethylene oxide, Fauteux C4L8-10) or polytetrafluoroethylene (recommended material for the reactive separator is porous polytetrafluoroethylene, Shen C5L60-61).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 5427872 A) in view of Fauteux et al. (US 5434021 A, cited as relevant in the 02/12/2024 Office action) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Li et al. (CN 105489815 A, with machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 2, modified Shen teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and teaches the interlayer is configured to comprise one or more active materials (fluoropolymers which exothermically react with lithium, Shen C5L48-49),
wherein the interlayer receives electrons from the anode for the one or more active materials comprised in the interlayer to electrochemically react (reacts with lithium, Shen C5L48-49) with the cations (lithium ions, Shen C4L37-39) when the one or more dendrites contact the interlayer (tip 74 of the lithium dendrite will react with the separator 49, Shen C6L2-5 FIG 4).
Modified Shen fails to teach: wherein the one or more active materials comprise Si, Sn, Al, Sb, P, graphite, amorphous carbon, SnSb, SnO, SnO2, MnO2, V2O5, TiO2, FeO, Fe3O4, Fe2O3, FeOOH, FePO4, NiCo2O4, SnS, SnS2, Sb2S3, NiS, Ni3S2, CoS2, CuS, FeS2, NiP3, or a combination thereof.
Li is analogous in the art of separator interlayers within lithium-based batteries (Li [0002, 0003]) and teaches the interlayer positioned between anode and cathode (Li abstract and FIG 1(b)) and such interlayer having both electrical conductivity and lithium ion conductivity (Li abstract and [0002, 0003, 0023]). Li teaches the interlayer exhibiting both electronic an ionic conductivities is beneficial to solve problems of poor cycle performance, low utilization rate of active materials, and low coulombic efficiency in order to improve cycle life (Li [0003]). Li teaches in [0005-0007] that in order to achieve these desirable inventive effects, the interlayer includes 5-35% by mass of conductive material which can be a carbon material, preferably including examples such as acetylene black and/or ketjen black. Acetylene black and ketjen black are known in the art to be amorphous carbon materials. Li further teaches in [0015, 0019, 0030] there can also be a solid electrolyte membrane included with the interlayer between the anode and the cathode that can have a metal-organic framework, teaching an exemplary interlayer including both polyethylene oxide (PEO) and aluminum (Al).
Therefore, in view of Li, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to further include conductive material such as amorphous carbon and/or metal-organic framework material such Al with polymer, in order to achieve beneficial effects taught by Li including improved cycle life within the interlayer of modified Shen.
Thereby, claim 2 is rendered obvious.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 5427872 A) in view of Fauteux et al. (US 5434021 A, cited as relevant in the 02/12/2024 Office action) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Zhamu et al. (US 20160344035 A1, cited as relevant in the 02/12/2024 Office action).
Regarding claim 10, modified Shen teaches the limitations of claim 1 above but fails to explicitly teach that the interlayer is electronically isolated from the cathode by a separator positioned between the cathode and the interlayer, wherein the separator is configurable into an ionically conductive membrane and/or the separator serves as a substrate which the interlayer is disposed on, and wherein the separator comprises polyethylene, polypropylene, or a combination thereof.
Zhamu is analogous in the art of rechargeable alkali metal batteries having interlayers (Zhamu abstract and FIG 1), teaching a lithium foil anode adjacent a dendrite-intercepting layer which is adjacent a separator laminated with a cathode layer (Zhamu [0001, 0031, 0045, 0111] and FIG 1). Zhamu teaches the separator exemplary as a porous polyethylene-polypropylene co-polymer film (Zhamu [0111]) which thus electrically isolates the interlayer from the cathode by being positioned therebetween (Zhamu FIG 1). Zhamu further teaches the separator is configurable into an ionically conductive membrane (porous separator impregnated with electrolyte, Zhamu [0045]) and/or the separator serves as a substrate which the interlayer is disposed on (dendrite-intercepting layer adjacent porous separator layer, Zhamu [0031, 0111] and FIG 1), and wherein the separator comprises polyethylene, polypropylene, or a combination thereof (polyethylene-polypropylene co-polymer film, per Zhamu [0111] as cited above). Zhamu teaches such electrolyte-impregnated separator for contacting the anode and cathode (Zhamu [0015, 0017]) and in combination with the interlayer, serving to stop further dendrite penetration (Zhamu [0012-0013, 0017-0018]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a separator in modified Shen, in the location and with the functionality of that of Zhamu, to ensure necessary ionic conduction between cathode and anode via electrolyte impregnated therein and to further aid the interlayer structurally in the interception of dendrites.
Thereby, claim 10 is rendered obvious.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 5427872 A) in view of Fauteux et al. (US 5434021 A, cited as relevant in the 02/12/2024 Office action) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Konopka et al. (US 20190221895 A1) and Skotheim (US 5648187 A).
Regarding claim 16, modified Shen teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and teaches the cations comprise lithium ions (lithium ions (Li+) are permitted to pass from anode toward and into electrolyte, Fauteux C4L28-29 and FIG 2), and teaches wherein the rechargeable battery is configured to have (i) the interlayer maintain a potential which is higher than a potential of Li+/Li when charging the rechargeable battery (Fauteux FIGS 3-4), but fails to explicitly teach (ii) the one or more dendrites withdraw from the interlayer toward the anode when discharging the rechargeable battery.
Konopka, analogous in the art of dendrite control, teaches that it is known in the rechargeable battery arts that during discharge of the battery, dendrites that have formed on the anode electrode may be partially dissolved back into the electrolyte layer but do not dissolve uniformly (Konopka [0041-0042]). Konopka teaches an inventive devices for controlling dendrite growth on electrodes and reabsorbing growths into the electrolyte in batteries, thus improving the performance and life of the battery (Konopka [0047]).
Skotheim, analogous in the art of dendrite control and anode stabilization, teaches a battery including an interlayer of: a lithium ion conducting polymer film interposed between the lithium anode and the electrolyte, said polymer film being doped electrically conductive and capable of transmitting lithium ions between the lithium anode and the electrolyte (Skotheim claim 1). Skotheim teaches this interlayer film is capable of stabilizing the lithium anode against the formation of dendrites and has the capability to dissolve dendrites (Skotheim claim 1).
Since Konopka teaches that reabsorbing dendrite growths during discharge improves the performance and life of the battery, and since Skotheim teaches that a lithium ion conducting polymer film which is doped to electrically conductive is capable of dissolving dendrites to stabilize lithium anodes, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to further modify Shen such that its interlayer (which is also a polymer-based film which is ionically and electronically conductive, as cited in above rejections) to have dendrite-dissolving capability such that the resultant battery was configured to have the one or more dendrites withdraw from the interlayer toward the anode when discharging the rechargeable battery. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the battery performance and life taught by Konopka as well as the anode stabilization taught by Konopka.
Thereby, claim 16 is rendered obvious.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mikhaylik et al. (US 20150044517 A1) teaches battery cell 200 having protective structure 212 including precursor layer 204 to protect the lithium anode ([0004-0006]), the protective structure including a polymeric material ([0026]), further teaching that those of ordinary skill in the art can choose suitable polymers based on their mechanical and/or electronic properties (e.g., ionic and/or electronic conductivity), and/or can modify such polymers to be ionically conducting (e.g., conductive towards single ions) and/or electronically conducting ([0064]).
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 Jessie Walls-Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-1664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, typically 10-4.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/JESSIE WALLS-MURRAY/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728