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 14 Jan, 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103, Applicant argues that the prior art references Jang ‘899 (US 10,629,899) and Zhamu (US 2020/0313170) fail to teach or disclose a sulfonated version of the list of polymers presented in claim 1.
The Examiner maintains that Jang ‘899 and Zhamu teach a polymer that reads on at least one of the members of the list. While Jang ‘899 and Zhamu do not teach a sulfonated version of said polymer, the prior art reference Tsao (Tsao, Chih-Hao, Tang-Kai Yang, Kun-You Chen, Chan-En Fang, Mitsuru Ueda, Felix H. Richter, Jürgen Janek, Chi-cheng Chiu, and Ping-Lin Kuo. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 13, no. 8 (2021): 9846-9855) teaches that it is advantageous to sulfonate a polymer to improve its ion conductivity, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 below.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang ‘899 (US 10,629,899) in view of Zhamu (US 2020/0313170) and Tsao (Tsao, Chih-Hao, Tang-Kai Yang, Kun-You Chen, Chan-En Fang, Mitsuru Ueda, Felix H. Richter, Jürgen Janek, Chi-cheng Chiu, and Ping-Lin Kuo. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 13, no. 8 (2021): 9846-9855).
Regarding claim 1, Jang ‘899 discloses a lithium-ion battery comprising an anode, a cathode, a lithium-ion permeable and electrically insulating separator (porous separator) that electrically separates the anode from the cathode (col. 8, lines 21-27), wherein the anode comprises
(i) multiple particles of an anode active material selected from the group consisting of silicon (Si), germanium (Ge), phosphorus (P), tin (Sn), lead (Pb), antimony (Sb), bismuth (Bi), zinc (Zn), aluminum (Al), titanium (Ti), nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), cadmium (Cd), alloys thereof, oxides thereof, alloys thereof with lithium (Li), and combinations thereof (col. 14, lines 64-67 to col. 15, lines 1-7);
(ii) An ion-conducting protective polymer (thin encapsulating layer) that is in physical contact with multiple particles of the anode active material to protect the particles, wherein the polymer has a lithium-ion conductivity ranging from 10-8 S/cm to 10-2 S/cm, which overlaps and thereby obviates the claimed range of 10-6 S/cm or greater (col. 4, lines 29-35, col. 13, lines 3-13);
(iii) 7% by weight of a conductive additive, which lies within the claimed range of 0% to 10% by weight (i.e., electron-conducting filler, see col. 4, lines 59-64. Col 29, lines 29-30 show an embodiment having 7% by weight acetylene black),
(iv) from 0.1% to 30 by weight a binder resin, which overlaps and thereby obviates the claimed range of 0% to 10% by weight (col. 4, lines 25-27); and
(v) a pore volume that does not exceed 50% of the total volume (col. 4, lines 42-45), which lies within the claimed range of from 5% to 80% by volume of pores in the anode.
While Jang ‘899 does not explicitly disclose the weight percentage of the ion-conductive polymer in contact with the anode material, Jang ‘899’s ion-conducting polymer comprises substantially the same material as the polymer of the instant application (compare col. 6, lines 30-46 of Jang ‘899 with pg. 7, lines 10-17 of the instant application), possesses substantially similar ion conductivity (10-6 S/cm or greater, see col. 7, lines 5-7), and has a substantially similar thickness when compared with the instant application (1 nm to 10 mm, see col. 4, lines 32-33, compare with pg. 12, lines 12-14 of the instant specification, which discloses a 10 nm to 20 mm thickness).
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have needed to add an amount of the ion-conductive polymer necessary to meet the thickness and conductivity requirements given by Jang ‘899. As the thickness and ion conductivity of the ion-conductive polymer are substantially similar to those of the instantly-claimed invention and the polymer is composed of substantially similar material, it would have been obvious and expected that one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at substantially the same 0.1% to 15% weight percentage given by claim 1.
Further regarding claim 1, Jang ‘899 comprises a protective polymer (encapsulating layer) comprising a conducting polymer (i.e., carbonaceous or graphitic material bonded by a polymer, see col. 4, lines 32-34). However, Jang ‘899 is silent as to the composition of the conducting polymer, and does not disclose a sulfonated conducting protective polymer from the group set forth in the instant claim.
Zhamu, also working in the field of active materials for lithium-ion batteries, teaches the addition of a protective polymer to an active material in order to act as an adhesive and to encapsulate the active material, which is the same purpose performed by Jang ‘899’s protective polymer (see Zhamu: [0017]-[0018] and Jang ‘899: col. 4, lines 29-35, col. 13, lines 3-13). Zhamu teaches that the following polymers are appropriate for this function:
poly(3-alkylthiophenes), poly(isothianaphthene), poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene), alkoxy-substituted poly(p-phenylene vinylene), poly(2,5-bis(cholestanoxy) phenylene vinylene), poly(p-phenylene vinylene), poly(2,5-dialkoxy) paraphenylene vinylene, poly[(1,4-phenylene-1,2-diphenylvinylene)], poly(3′,7′-dimethyloctyloxy phenylene vinylene), polyparaphenylene, polyparaphenylene, polyparaphenylene sulphide, polyheptadiyne, poly(3-hexylthiophene), poly(3-octylthiophene), poly(3-cyclohexylthiophene), poly(3-methyl-4-cyclohexylthiophene), poly(2,5-dialkoxy-1,4-phenyleneethynylene), poly(2-decyloxy-1,4-phenylene), poly(9,9-dioctylfluorene), and polyquinoline ([0017]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to select poly(3-alkylthiophenes), poly(isothianaphthene), poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene), alkoxy-substituted poly(p-phenylene vinylene), poly(2,5-bis(cholestanoxy) phenylene vinylene), poly(p-phenylene vinylene), poly(2,5-dialkoxy) paraphenylene vinylene, poly[(1,4-phenylene-1,2-diphenylvinylene)], poly(3′,7′-dimethyloctyloxy phenylene vinylene), polyparaphenylene, polyparaphenylene, polyparaphenylene sulphide, polyheptadiyne, poly(3-hexylthiophene), poly(3-octylthiophene), poly(3-cyclohexylthiophene), poly(3-methyl-4-cyclohexylthiophene), poly(2,5-dialkoxy-1,4-phenyleneethynylene), poly(2-decyloxy-1,4-phenylene), poly(9,9-dioctylfluorene), and/or polyquinoline as suitable conducting polymers to be included in the active material of Jang ‘899. Said artisan would have been motivated to select these polymers based on Zhamu’s teaching that the above polymers are suitable for acting as an adhesive and for encapsulating the active material, which is also the purpose of Jang ‘899’s polymer. As such, said artisan would have recognized that the above polymers are art-recognized materials for performing the intended function of Jang ‘899’s polymer, and would have yielded predictable results.
Further regarding claim 1, the combined references of Jang ‘899 in view of Zhamu as applied above teach a lithium-ion battery comprising a protective polymer selected from: poly(3-alkylthiophenes), poly(isothianaphthene), poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene), alkoxy-substituted poly(p-phenylene vinylene), poly(2,5-bis(cholestanoxy) phenylene vinylene), poly(p-phenylene vinylene), poly(2,5-dialkoxy) paraphenylene vinylene, poly[(1,4-phenylene-1,2-diphenylvinylene)], poly(3′,7′-dimethyloctyloxy phenylene vinylene), polyparaphenylene, polyparaphenylene, polyparaphenylene sulphide, polyheptadiyne, poly(3-hexylthiophene), poly(3-octylthiophene), poly(3-cyclohexylthiophene), poly(3-methyl-4-cyclohexylthiophene), poly(2,5-dialkoxy-1,4-phenyleneethynylene), poly(2-decyloxy-1,4-phenylene), poly(9,9-dioctylfluorene), and polyquinoline (Zhamu: [0017]). However, Jang ‘899 in view of Zhamu as applied does not teach a sulfonated version of the above polymers.
Tsao, working in the field of polymers for lithium-ion batteries, teaches that sulfonated polymers exhibit improved lithium-ion transport properties during charging/discharging processes, because negatively-charged sulfonate groups can carry lithium ions via electrostatic interactions (Tsao: pg. 9846, col. 2, para 1 to pg. 9847, col. 1, paras 1-2). Jang ‘899 teaches that the protective material used in Jang 899’s lithium-ion battery must be a good lithium conductor (Jang ‘899: col. 3, lines 7-22).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protective polymer of the lithium-ion battery of Jang ‘899 in view of Zhamu by sulfonating the protective polymer selected from: poly(3-alkylthiophenes), poly(isothianaphthene), poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene), alkoxy-substituted poly(p-phenylene vinylene), poly(2,5-bis(cholestanoxy) phenylene vinylene), poly(p-phenylene vinylene), poly(2,5-dialkoxy) paraphenylene vinylene, poly[(1,4-phenylene-1,2-diphenylvinylene)], poly(3′,7′-dimethyloctyloxy phenylene vinylene), polyparaphenylene, polyparaphenylene, polyparaphenylene sulphide, polyheptadiyne, poly(3-hexylthiophene), poly(3-octylthiophene), poly(3-cyclohexylthiophene), poly(3-methyl-4-cyclohexylthiophene), poly(2,5-dialkoxy-1,4-phenyleneethynylene), poly(2-decyloxy-1,4-phenylene), poly(9,9-dioctylfluorene), and polyquinoline in the manner taught by Tsao. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to improve the ion transport properties of the protective polymer, as taught by Tsao.
Regarding claim 2, Jang ‘899 in view of Zhamu and Tsao discloses a battery comprising an ion-conducting protective polymer (Jang ‘899: encapsulating polymer, col. 6, lines 30-33). Jang specifies that said polymer may be selected from natural polyisoprene, synthetic polyisoprene, polybutadiene, chloroprene rubber, polychloroprene, butyl rubber, styrene-butadiene rubber, nitrile rubber, ethylene propylene rubber, ethylene propylene diene rubber, polyacrylic rubber, silicone rubber, fluorosilicone rubber, perfluoroelastomers, polyether block amides, chlorosulfonated polyethylene, ethylene-vinyl acetate, thermoplastic elastomer, protein resilin, protein elastin, ethylene oxide-epichlorohydrin copolymer, polyurethane, urethane-urea copolymer, a sulfonated version thereof, or a combination thereof (Jang ‘899: col. 6, lines 30-46).
While Jang ‘899 in view of Zhamu and Tsao does not explicitly disclose the reversible tensile strain of the polymer, Jang’s polymer is elastic and made of substantially the same material as that of the instant specification (see instant specification, pg. 7, lines 10-17). As such, the elastic polymer of Jang would be expected to possess a substantially similar reversible tensile strain to that of the instantly-claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, the elastic polymer of Jang ‘899 in view of Zhamu and Tsao is selected from a group that contains natural polyisoprene, synthetic polyisoprene, polybutadiene, chloroprene rubber, polychloroprene, butyl rubber, styrene-butadiene rubber, nitrile rubber, ethylene propylene rubber, ethylene propylene diene rubber, polyacrylic rubber, silicone rubber, fluorosilicone rubber, perfluoroelastomers, polyether block amides, chlorosulfonated polyethylene, ethylene-vinyl acetate, thermoplastic elastomer, protein resilin, protein elastin, ethylene oxide-epichlorohydrin copolymer, polyurethane, urethane-urea copolymer, a sulfonated version thereof, or a combination thereof (Jang: col. 6, lines 30-46).
Regarding claim 17, the battery of Jang ‘899 in view of Zhamu and Tsao comprises a porous polymer separator (Celgard 2400, Jang ‘899: col. 29, lines 38-39).
Regarding claim 18, the inorganic solid electrolyte recited in claim 18 is proviso upon the presence of a limitation that is not positively required by claim 17 (i.e., the separator may comprise a porous polymer and not an inorganic solid electrolyte). As such, the limitations of claim 18 do not come into force.
Regarding claim 19, the solid polymer electrolyte recited in claim 19 is proviso upon the presence of a limitation that is not positively required by claim 17 (i.e., the separator may comprise a porous polymer and not a solid polymer electrolyte). As such, the limitations of claim 19 do not come into force.
Claims 4-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang ‘899 (US 10,629,899) in view of Zhamu (US 2020/0313170) and Tsao (Tsao, Chih-Hao, Tang-Kai Yang, Kun-You Chen, Chan-En Fang, Mitsuru Ueda, Felix H. Richter, Jürgen Janek, Chi-cheng Chiu, and Ping-Lin Kuo. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 13, no. 8 (2021): 9846-9855) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Pan (US 2018/0301707).
Regarding claims 4-6, Jang ‘899 in view of Zhamu and Tsao discloses an elastic polymer as a protective layer (encapsulating layer, Jang ‘899: col. 4, lines 28-35) to protect an anode material but does not specify that said polymer is cross-linked. Further, Jang ‘899 does not specify that the polymer is selected from the list of polymers presented in claim 5 and does not specify that the polymer contains the chains listed in claim 6.
Pan, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches a similar anode material in which a polymer is used as a protective layer for an anode material (Pan: [0013]-[0014]). Pan further teaches that a cross-linked polymer network containing an ether linkage, nitrile-derived linkage, benzo peroxide-derived linkage, ethylene oxide linkage, propylene oxide linkage, vinyl alcohol linkage, cyano-resin linkage, triacrylate monomer-derived linkage, tetraacrylate monomer-derived linkage, or a combination thereof is preferred for this application, as such polymers have a high elasticity and lithium-ion conductivity (Pan: [0015]). With specific regard to claim 6, Pan teaches a polymer chain having a cyanoresin chain (i.e., the polymer posseses a cyano-resin linkage, see Pan: [0015]-[0016]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Jang ‘899 in view of Zhamu and Tsao by making use of a cross-linked polymer comprising a cyanoresin chain from the group described above by Pan. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such an alteration in order to take advantage of the high elasticity and ion conductivity of these polymers, as taught by Pan.
Regarding claim 8, Jang ‘899 in view of Zhamu and Tsao discloses an elastic polymer as a protective layer (encapsulating layer, Jang ’89: col. 4, lines 28-35),) to protect an anode material, but Jang ‘899 does not specify that said polymer comprises a polymer selected from the list of polymers presented in claim 8.
Pan, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches a similar anode material in which a polymer is used as a protective layer for an anode material (Pan: [0013]-[0014]). Pan further teaches that a polymer comprising a polymer selected from sulfonated poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO), polypropylene oxide (PPO), poly(acrylonitrile) (PAN), poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVdF), poly bis-methoxy ethoxyethoxide-phosphazenex, polyvinyl chloride, polydimethylsiloxane, poly(vinylidene fluoride)-hexafluoropropylene (PVDF-HFP), or a sulfonated derivative thereof is preferred for this application, as such polymers impart an improved lithium-ion conductivity (Pan: [0015], [0024]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to make use of a cross-linked polymer from the group described above by Pan in the battery of Jang ‘899 in view of Zhamu and Tsao. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such an alteration in order to take advantage of the improved lithium-ion conductivity of these polymers, as taught by Pan.
Claims 9-16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang ‘899 (US 10,629,899) in view of Zhamu (US 2020/0313170) and Tsao (Tsao, Chih-Hao, Tang-Kai Yang, Kun-You Chen, Chan-En Fang, Mitsuru Ueda, Felix H. Richter, Jürgen Janek, Chi-cheng Chiu, and Ping-Lin Kuo. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 13, no. 8 (2021): 9846-9855) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiao (US 2020/0321603).
Regarding claims 9-11 and 13, Jang ‘899 in view of Zhamu and Tsao discloses an anode and separator, and discloses that a solid-electrolyte interface (SEI) that forms between anode and separator (Jang ‘899col. 1, lines 51-60), but Jang ‘899 in view of Zhamu and Tsao does not disclose an artificial SEI having a lithium-ion conductivity greater than 10-6 S/cm disposed between the separator and anode.
Xiao, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches that adding an artificial SEI layer to the surface of a lithium-based host material suppresses the formation of Li dendrites in the active material, which reduce cycle efficiency (Xiao: [0002], [0011], [0030]). Xiao’s artificial SEI layer comprises a polymer matrix embedded with LiF, (which reads on the instantly-claimed LiX, see Xiao: [0030]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Jang ‘899 in view of Zhamu and Tsao by incorporating the artificial SEI layer comprising LiX into the SEI taught by Xiao. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to inhibit dendrite formation and improve the cycling efficiency of the battery, as taught by Xiao. With specific regards to claims 9 and 10, while Xiao does not explicitly disclose the Li-ion conductivity of said artificial SEI layer, the artificial SEI layer of Xiao is composed of substantially the same material as that of the instantly-claimed artificial SEI layer (i.e., LiX), and as such would be expected to have a substantially similar Li-ion conductivity. With regard to claim 13, the recitation of the manner in which the artificial SEI layer is produced (i.e., via electrical decomposition) does not further limit the structure of the claimed SEI layer. The artificial SEI layer taught by Xiao as applied above therefore meets all of the structural limitations of the SEI layer of claim 13.
Regarding claim 12, Jang ‘899 in view of Zhamu and Tsao discloses an anode and separator, and discloses that a solid-electrolyte interface (SEI) that forms between anode and separator (Jang ‘899:col. 1, lines 51-60), but does not disclose an artificial SEI disposed between the separator and anode comprising a lithium- or sodium-containing species from the list presented in claim 12.
Xiao, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches that adding an artificial SEI layer to the surface of a lithium-based host material suppresses the formation of Li dendrites in the active material, which reduce cycle efficiency (Xiao: [0002], [0011], [0030]). Xiao’s artificial SEI layer comprises a polymer matrix, with LiF dispersed in said matrix and 0% by weight of a reinforcement phase dispersed in said matrix to form an integral layer (Xiao: [0030]).
In the artificial SEI layer of Xiao, the lithium-containing species LiF is present in the SEI is present in an amount of 5 to 75 wt % (Xiao: [0030]), which lies within and thereby anticipates the claimed weight ratio range of 1/100 to 100/1. While Xiao does not explicitly disclose what volume percentage of the integral layer is the polymer matrix, the weight percentage of the matrix of Xiao is 25 to 95% (since the other 5 to 75% of the layer is LiF), which appears to substantially overlap and thereby obviate the claimed range of 5 to 95% by volume (further depending on the density of the polymer selected).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery taught by Jang ‘899 in view of Zhamu and Tsao by incorporating the artificial SEI layer comprising LiX taught by Xiao into the SEI of the battery. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to inhibit dendrite formation and improve the cycling efficiency of the battery, as taught by Xiao.
Further regarding claim 12, the recitation of the manner in which the artificial SEI layer is produced (i.e., via electrical decomposition) does not further limit the structure of the claimed SEI layer. The artificial SEI layer taught by Xiao as applied above therefore meets all of the structural limitations of the SEI layer of claim 12.
Regarding claim 14, Jang ‘899 in view of Zhamu and Tsao discloses a conductive additive comprising carbon black particles (Jang ‘899: acetylene black, col. 29, lines 29-30).
Regarding claim 15, the reinforcement phase recited in claim 15 is proviso upon the presence of greater than 0% of a reinforcement phase. As claim 12 allows for 0% by weight of the reinforcement phase to be present, the limitations of claim 15 do not come into force.
Similarly, claim 16 is proviso upon the presence of a graphene sheet or platelet reinforcement phase that is not positively required by claim 15 (i.e., the reinforcement phase may be selected from ceramic particles or fibers, glass particles or fibers, etc., and may not comprise graphene sheets or platelets. Alternately, the reinforcement phase may not be present at all, as set forth in the rejection of claim 15 above). As such, the limitations of claim 16 do not come into force.
Regarding claim 22, Jang ‘899 in view of Zhamu and Tsao discloses a solid-electrolyte interface (SEI) that forms between anode and separator (Jang ‘899: col. 1, lines 51-60), but does not disclose an artificial SEI having a thickness of 10 nm to 20 nm disposed between the separator and anode.
Xiao, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches that adding an artificial SEI layer to the surface of a lithium-based host material suppresses the formation of Li dendrites in the active material, which reduce cycle efficiency (Xiao: [0002] , [0011], [0030]). Xiao’s artificial SEI layer comprises a polymer matrix embedded with LiF, (which reads on the instantly-claimed LiX, see Xiao: [0030]). The artificial SEI layer of Xiao has a thickness of about 50 nm to 100 nm, which lies within and thereby obviates the claimed range of 10 nm to 20 mm (Xiao: [0033]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery taught by Jang ‘899 in view of Zhamu and Tsao by incorporating the artificial SEI layer 50 to 100 nm in thickness and comprising LiX into the SEI of the battery in the manner taught by Xiao. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to inhibit dendrite formation and improve the cycling efficiency of the battery, as taught by Xiao. With specific regards to claims 9 and 10, while Xiao does not explicitly disclose the Li-ion conductivity of said artificial SEI layer, the artificial SEI layer of Xiao is composed of substantially the same material as that of the instantly-claimed artificial SEI layer (i.e., LiX), and as such would be expected to have a substantially similar Li-ion conductivity.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang ‘899 (US 10,629,899) in view of Zhamu (US 2020/0313170) and Tsao (Tsao, Chih-Hao, Tang-Kai Yang, Kun-You Chen, Chan-En Fang, Mitsuru Ueda, Felix H. Richter, Jürgen Janek, Chi-cheng Chiu, and Ping-Lin Kuo. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 13, no. 8 (2021): 9846-9855) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Takeuchi (EP 0852819).
Regarding claim 20, Jang ‘899 in view of Zhamu and Tsao discloses a lithium-ion battery with a porous polymer membrane separator (Celgard 2400, Jang: ‘899 col. 29, lines 38-39). Jang does not specify that said separator is soaked or impregnated with a liquid electrolyte comprising a lithium salt dissolved in a liquid solvent.
Takeuchi, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches a lithium-ion battery with a polymer separator impregnated with a liquid electrolyte (i.e., the electrolytic solution is included within the separator, see Takeuchi: [0013], [0018]). The liquid electrolyte of Takeuchi comprises a lithium salt (LiBF4) dissolved in a liquid solvent (Takeuchi: [0176], [0180]). Takeuchi further teaches that incorporating the electrolyte solution into the separator in this fashion increases the ion conductivity of the separator without compromising the strength of the separator (Takeuchi: [0064]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to also impregnate the polymer separator of Jang ‘899 in view of Zhamu and Tsao with a lithium salt dissolved in the liquid solvent taught by Takeuchi. Said artisan would have been motivated to impregnate Jang ‘899 in view of Zhamu and Tsao’s separator in this way in order to improve the Li-ion conductivity of the separator while maintaining the strength of the separator, as taught by Takeuchi.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang ‘899 (US 10,629,899) in view of Zhamu (US 2020/0313170) and Tsao (Tsao, Chih-Hao, Tang-Kai Yang, Kun-You Chen, Chan-En Fang, Mitsuru Ueda, Felix H. Richter, Jürgen Janek, Chi-cheng Chiu, and Ping-Lin Kuo. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 13, no. 8 (2021): 9846-9855) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang (2018/0309169).
Regarding claim 21, Jang ‘899 in view of Zhamu and Tsao discloses a lithium-ion battery comprising a protective polymer (thin encapsulating layer/shell, Jang ‘899: col. 13, lines 3-14, col. 14, lines 9-15). Further, Jang ‘899 in view of Zhamu and Tsao discloses that said protective polymer layer may comprise a lithium ion-conducting additive dispersed in the polymer (Jang ‘899: col. 15, lines 55-61), where said additive may comprise a liquid electrolyte solvent (liquid-based lithium salt, Jang ‘899: col. 16, lines 59-61), but Jang does not disclose the ratio of liquid to polymer.
Yang, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches a protective polymer layer (LiF-polymer composite) for a Li-ion battery which similarly comprises a liquid electrolyte solvent with a dissolved lithium salt added as an ion-conducting additive (Yang: [0074]). The liquid electrolyte additive is present in an amount of 10 to 20% of the weight of the polymer, which lies within and thereby obviates the instantly-claimed range of 1/100 to 1/1 (Yang: [0074]). According to Yang, this system provides for good cycling performance at low temperature while also minimizing SEI reactions and electrolyte consumption (Yang: [0073]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Jang ‘899 in view of Zhamu and Tsao incorporate from 1/100 to 1/1 of a liquid electrolyte into the protective polymer as taught by Yang. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such an addition in order to improve the low-temperature performance of Jang ‘899 in view of Zhamu and Tsao’s battery while also minimizing unwanted SEI side reactions and reducing electrolyte consumption, as taught by Yang.
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 1, 10-20, and 22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 10-13, and 17 of copending Application No. 17/449,002 (Jang ‘002) in view of Zhamu (US 2020/0313170) and Tsao (Tsao, Chih-Hao, Tang-Kai Yang, Kun-You Chen, Chan-En Fang, Mitsuru Ueda, Felix H. Richter, Jürgen Janek, Chi-cheng Chiu, and Ping-Lin Kuo. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 13, no. 8 (2021): 9846-9855).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Instant claim 1 claims a lithium-ion battery comprising an anode, a cathode, a lithium-ion permeable and electrically insulating separator that electrically separates the anode from the cathode, wherein the anode comprises multiple particles of an anode active material selected from the group consisting of silicon (Si), germanium (Ge), phosphorus (P), tin (Sn), lead (Pb), antimony (Sb), bismuth (Bi), zinc (Zn), aluminum (Al), titanium (Ti), nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), cadmium (Cd), alloys thereof, oxides thereof, alloys thereof with lithium (Li), and combinations thereof, from 0.1% to 15% by weight of an ion-conducting protective polymer that is in physical contact with multiple particles of the anode active material to protect the particles, wherein the polymer has a lithium-ion conductivity no less than 10- S/cm, from 0% to 10% by weight of a conductive additive, from 0% to 10% by weight of a binder resin, and from 5% to 80% by volume of pores in the anode.
Additionally, claim 1 of the instant application requires that the ion-conducting protective polymer contains a conductive polymer network of cross-linked chains comprising chains of a conjugated polymer selected from polyacetylene, polythiophene, poly(3- alkylthiophenes), polypyrrole, polyaniline, poly(isothianaphthene), poly(3,4- ethylenedioxythiophene), alkoxy-substituted poly(p-phenylene vinylene), poly(2,5- bis(cholestanoxy) phenylene vinylene), poly(p-phenylene vinylene), poly(2,5-dialkoxy) paraphenylene vinylene, poly[(1,4-phenylene-1,2-diphenylvinylene)l, poly(3',7'- dimethyloctyloxy phenylene vinylene), polyparaphenylene, polyparaphenylene,polyparaphenylene sulphide, polyheptadiyne, poly(3-hexylthiophene), poly(3-octylthiophene),poly(3-cyclohexylthiophene), poly(3-methyl-4-cyclohexylthiophene), poly(2,5-dialkoxy-1,4- phenyleneethynylene), poly(2-decyloxy-1,4-phenylene), poly(9,9-dioctylfluorene),polyquinoline, a derivative thereof, a copolymer thereof, a sulfonated version thereof, or a combination thereof.
Claim 1 of Jang ‘002 application also claims a lithium-ion battery comprising an anode, a cathode, a lithium-ion permeable and electrically insulating separator that electrically separates the anode from the cathode, and an artificial solid-electrolyte interface (SEI) layer disposed between the anode and the separator wherein the artificial SEI layer has a lithium-ion conductivity greater than 10-6 S/cm and the anode comprises multiple particles of an anode active material selected from the group consisting of silicon (Si), germanium (Ge), phosphorus (P), tin (Sn), lead (Pb), antimony (Sb), bismuth (Bi), zinc (Zn), aluminum (Al), titanium (Ti), nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), cadmium (Cd), alloys thereof, alloys thereof with lithium (Li), and combinations thereof, 0-10% by weight of a conductive additive, and 0-10% by weight of a binder resin. Jang ‘002 does not require a protective polymer.
Zhamu, also working in the field of active materials for lithium-ion batteries, teaches the addition of a protective polymer to an active material in order to act as an adhesive and to encapsulate the active material, which is the same purpose performed by Jiang ‘002’s protective polymer (see Zhamu: [0017]-[0018] and Jiang ‘899: col. 4, lines 29-35, col. 13, lines 3-13). Zhamu teaches that the following polymers are appropriate for this function:
poly(3-alkylthiophenes), poly(isothianaphthene), poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene), alkoxy-substituted poly(p-phenylene vinylene), poly(2,5-bis(cholestanoxy) phenylene vinylene), poly(p-phenylene vinylene), poly(2,5-dialkoxy) paraphenylene vinylene, poly[(1,4-phenylene-1,2-diphenylvinylene)], poly(3′,7′-dimethyloctyloxy phenylene vinylene), polyparaphenylene, polyparaphenylene, polyparaphenylene sulphide, polyheptadiyne, poly(3-hexylthiophene), poly(3-octylthiophene), poly(3-cyclohexylthiophene), poly(3-methyl-4-cyclohexylthiophene), poly(2,5-dialkoxy-1,4-phenyleneethynylene), poly(2-decyloxy-1,4-phenylene), poly(9,9-dioctylfluorene), and polyquinoline ([0017]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention modify the battery of Jang ‘002 by selecting a polymer from the group of poly(3-alkylthiophenes), poly(isothianaphthene), poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene), alkoxy-substituted poly(p-phenylene vinylene), poly(2,5-bis(cholestanoxy) phenylene vinylene), poly(p-phenylene vinylene), poly(2,5-dialkoxy) paraphenylene vinylene, poly[(1,4-phenylene-1,2-diphenylvinylene)], poly(3′,7′-dimethyloctyloxy phenylene vinylene), polyparaphenylene, polyparaphenylene, polyparaphenylene sulphide, polyheptadiyne, poly(3-hexylthiophene), poly(3-octylthiophene), poly(3-cyclohexylthiophene), poly(3-methyl-4-cyclohexylthiophene), poly(2,5-dialkoxy-1,4-phenyleneethynylene), poly(2-decyloxy-1,4-phenylene), poly(9,9-dioctylfluorene), and/or polyquinoline as taught by Zhamu.
Said artisan would have been motivated to select these polymers based on Zhamu’s teaching that the above polymers are suitable for acting as an adhesive and for encapsulating the active material, which is also the purpose of Jang ‘002’s polymer. As such, said artisan would have recognized that the above polymers are art-recognized materials for performing the intended function of Jang ‘002’s polymer, and would have yielded predictable results.
Further regarding claim 1, the combined references of Jang ‘002 in view of Zhamu as applied above teach a lithium-ion battery comprising a protective polymer selected from: poly(3-alkylthiophenes), poly(isothianaphthene), poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene), alkoxy-substituted poly(p-phenylene vinylene), poly(2,5-bis(cholestanoxy) phenylene vinylene), poly(p-phenylene vinylene), poly(2,5-dialkoxy) paraphenylene vinylene, poly[(1,4-phenylene-1,2-diphenylvinylene)], poly(3′,7′-dimethyloctyloxy phenylene vinylene), polyparaphenylene, polyparaphenylene, polyparaphenylene sulphide, polyheptadiyne, poly(3-hexylthiophene), poly(3-octylthiophene), poly(3-cyclohexylthiophene), poly(3-methyl-4-cyclohexylthiophene), poly(2,5-dialkoxy-1,4-phenyleneethynylene), poly(2-decyloxy-1,4-phenylene), poly(9,9-dioctylfluorene), and polyquinoline (Zhamu: [0017]). However, Jang ‘002 in view of Zhamu as applied does not teach a sulfonated version of the above polymers.
Tsao, working in the field of polymers for lithium-ion batteries, teaches that sulfonated polymers exhibit improved lithium-ion transport properties during charging/discharging processes, because negatively-charged sulfonate groups can carry lithium ions via electrostatic interactions (Tsao: pg. 9846, col. 2, para 1 to pg. 9847, col. 1, paras 1-2).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protective polymer of the lithium-ion battery of Jang ‘002 in view of Zhamu by sulfonating the protective polymer selected from: poly(3-alkylthiophenes), poly(isothianaphthene), poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene), alkoxy-substituted poly(p-phenylene vinylene), poly(2,5-bis(cholestanoxy) phenylene vinylene), poly(p-phenylene vinylene), poly(2,5-dialkoxy) paraphenylene vinylene, poly[(1,4-phenylene-1,2-diphenylvinylene)], poly(3′,7′-dimethyloctyloxy phenylene vinylene), polyparaphenylene, polyparaphenylene, polyparaphenylene sulphide, polyheptadiyne, poly(3-hexylthiophene), poly(3-octylthiophene), poly(3-cyclohexylthiophene), poly(3-methyl-4-cyclohexylthiophene), poly(2,5-dialkoxy-1,4-phenyleneethynylene), poly(2-decyloxy-1,4-phenylene), poly(9,9-dioctylfluorene), and polyquinoline in the manner taught by Tsao. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to improve the ion transport properties of the protective polymer, as taught by Tsao.
With regard to instant claim 10 and 2 of Jang ‘002 they both claim the same subject matter.
With regard to instant claim 11 and 3 of Jang ‘002 they both claim the same subject matter.
With regard to instant claim 12 and 4 of Jang ‘002 they both claim the same subject matter.
With regard to instant claim 13 and 5 of Jang ‘002 they both claim the same subject matter.
With regard to instant claim 14 and 6 of Jang ‘002 they both claim the same subject matter.
With regard to instant claim 15 and 7 of Jang ‘002 they both claim the same subject matter.
With regard to instant claim 16 and 8 of Jang ‘002 they both claim the same subject matter.
With regard to instant claim 17 and 10 of Jang ‘002 they both claim the same subject matter.
With regard to instant claim 18 and 11 of Jang ‘002 they both claim the same subject matter.
With regard to instant claim 19 and 12 of Jang ‘002 they both claim the same subject matter.
With regard to instant claim 20 and 13 of Jang ‘002 they both claim the same subject matter.
With regard to instant claim 22 and 17 of Jang ‘002 they both claim the same subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Park (Park, M. J., & Kim, S. Y. (2013). Ion transport in sulfonated polymers. Journal of Polymer Science Part B: Polymer Physics, 51(7), 481-493) teaches that the ion transport of a polymer can be increased by sulfonating the polymer (see Abstract).
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 ALBERT HILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)-272-3066. 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.
/A.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TONG GUO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723