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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is amended. Claim 2 is canceled. Claims 1 & 3-41 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 11-13, 17-18 & 20-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phares (US 2022/0069337 A1) in view of Zhamu (US 2019/0173079 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 17-18 & 20-21, Phares teaches a hybrid solid electrolyte particulate for use in a rechargeable lithium battery cell, wherein said particulate comprises one or more than one inorganic solid electrolyte particles such as Li7La3Zr2O12 (LLZO) which is a well-known garnet type within the art ([0052]) encapsulated by a shell having a thickness of less than 10 microns of a polymer electrolyte comprising a lithium ion conducting polymer such as polyethylene oxide (PEO) and a lithium salt such as LiBF4, wherein the polymer electrolyte comprises a polymer that is crosslinking product of a reactive additive comprising (i) a first liquid solvent that is crosslinkable (ii) an initiator and (iii) a lithium salt, wherein the first liquid solvent occupies from 1% to 99% by weight of the total weight of the reactive additive ([0041]-[0053] & [0062]-[0065]). Phares is silent as to inorganic solid electrolyte particles being selected from a hydride type, halide type, borate type, phosphate type, lithium phosphorous oxynitride (LiPON), lithium superionic conductor (LISICON) type, sodium superionic conductor (NASICON) type, or combination thereof. However, one of ordinary skill in the art readily understands that garnets (i.e LLZO) such as the one described in Phares and NASICON are art recognized functional equivalents for the purposes of achieving high lithium-ion conductivity in lithium battery separators/solid electrolytes as taught by Zhamu ([0013], [0021], [0030] & [0140]-[0142]). “In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art, and cannot be based on applicant’s disclosure or the mere fact that the components at issue are functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958)”. See MPEP 2144.06 II.
Regarding claims 5 & 13, Phares teaches the first liquid solvent comprises ethylene carbonate and/or dinitriles such as GLN ([0035]).
Regarding claim 9, Phares teaches the lithium salt occupying 0.1% to 30% by weight and the initiator occupying 0.1% to 50% by weight of the reactive additive ([0049], [0064] & [0100]).
Regarding claims 11-12, Phares is silent as to the first liquid solvent comprising a sulfone or a sulfide selected from one of the groups recited in claims 11-12. Zhamu teaches a polymer electrolyte comprising a polymer that is a polymerization or crosslinking product of a reactive additive comprising a first liquid solvent that is polymerizable and/or crosslinkable and comprising a sulfone such as sulfolane ([0130]-[0131], [0140]-[0146] & [0152]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to include a sulfone such as sulfolane as a suitable solvent for forming a polymer electrolyte which can be used to produce particulates comprising the polymer electrolyte encapsulating electrode ingredients such as active materials, conductive materials and electrolyte materials as taught by Zhamu ([0145]-[0146] & [0152]). “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claims 22-27, Phares teaches a battery comprising an anode, a cathode and a separator, wherein the separator comprises multiple hybrid solid electrolyte particulates as defined in claim 1 ([0066], [0067], [0069]-[0070] & [0094]). Phares further teaches an anode comprising multiple anode particulates comprising anode active material particles such as silicon or graphite encapsulated by a 2nd solid electrolyte polymer, wherein the solid electrolyte polymer of the hybrid solid electrolyte particulates and the 2nd solid electrolyte polymer are identical or different in chemical composition and structure, and wherein the hybrid solid electrolyte particulates and the anode particulates are compacted or consolidated to form the anode (Fig. 5; [0058], [0066], [0067], [0069]-[0070], [0092] & [0094]). Phares also discloses a cathode comprising multiple cathode particulates comprising cathode active material particles such as LiCoO2 encapsulated by a 2nd solid electrolyte polymer, wherein the solid electrolyte polymer of the hybrid solid electrolyte particulates and the 2nd solid electrolyte polymer are identical or different in chemical composition and structure, and wherein the hybrid solid electrolyte particulates and the cathode particulates are compacted or consolidated to form the anode (Fig. 5; [0058], [0066], [0067], [0069]-[0070], [0092] & [0094]). While Phares does not explicitly teach a rechargeable lithium cell, one of ordinary skill in the art readily understands that a cathode comprising a cathode active material such as LiCoO2 and an anode comprising an anode active material such as silicon or graphite respectively include well-known active materials which are capable of reversibly intercalating and deintercalating lithium ions. As such, the resulting battery is found to read on the claimed rechargeable lithium-ion cell.
Regarding claims 28-29, Phares teaches the cell of claims 23-24, respectively, further including an additive (105) which can be included in an electrode along with the active materials (Fig. 5; [0044] & [0085]) but is silent as to a conductive additive that is compacted or consolidated with the hybrid solid electrolyte particulates and the anode particulates to form the anode (claim 28) and a conductive additive that is compacted or consolidated with the hybrid solid electrolyte particulates and the cathode particulates to form the cathode (claim 29). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to compact or consolidate a conductive additive with the hybrid solid electrolyte particulates and the respective cathode and anode particulates to form the cathode and the anode as well-known and used electrode additives in order to increase the electrical conductivity of the cathode and anode as taught by Zhamu ([0089], [0092] & [0152]).
Regarding claims 30-32 & 35-36, Phares teaches a process for producing a plurality of hybrid solid electrolyte particulates as defined in claim 1, said process comprising: (A) dispersing a plurality of primary particles of an inorganic solid electrolyte having a diameter from 1 nm to 20 microns in a reactive liquid mixture of (i) a monomer, oligomer or crosslinkable polymer and (ii) an initiator to form a reactive slurry; (B) forming the reactive slurry into micro-droplets by spray-drying; and (C) polymerizing and/or curing the monomer while removing a liquid solvent from the micro-droplets to form the hybrid solid electrolyte particulates ([0040], [0056] & [0085]-[0086]).
Regarding claim 33, Phares teaches the process of claim 30 but is silent as to combining a conductive additive with said hybrid solid electrolyte particulates and particles of an anode active material or combining a conductive additive with said hybrid solid electrolyte particulates and particles of a cathode active material. However, as noted above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to compact or consolidate a conductive additive with the hybrid solid electrolyte particulates and the respective cathode and anode particulates to form the cathode and the anode in order to increase the electrical conductivity of the cathode and anode as taught by Zhamu ([0089], [0092] & [0152]).
Regarding claims 34 & 37, Phares teaches a step of combining and consolidating said hybrid solid electrolyte particulates to form a solid electrolyte separator ([0066] & [0092]).
Regarding claims 38-39, Phares teaches a step of combining and consolidating (i) said hybrid solid electrolyte particulates having a 1st solid electrolyte polymer encapsulating inorganic solid electrolyte particles and (ii) anode or cathode active material particles encapsulated by a 2nd solid electrolyte polymer to form an anode or cathode electrode, wherein the 1st solid electrolyte polymer and the 2nd solid electrolyte polymer are identical or different in chemical composition or structure (Fig. 5; [0085]-[0086]).
Regarding claims 40-41, Phares teaches the process of claims 38-39 but is silent as to combining a conductive additive with said hybrid solid electrolyte particulates and particles of an anode active material (claim 40) and combining a conductive additive with said hybrid solid electrolyte particulates and particles of a cathode active material (claim 41). However, as noted above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to compact or consolidate a conductive additive with the hybrid solid electrolyte particulates and the respective cathode and anode particulates to form the cathode and the anode in order to increase the electrical conductivity of the cathode and anode as taught by Zhamu ([0089], [0092] & [0152]).
Claims 6, 10, 14-16 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phares (US 2022/0069337 A1) and Zhamu (US 2019/0173079 A1), as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 9, 13, 17-18, 20-27, 30-32 & 34-39 above, and further in view of Yoon (US 2022/0025126 A1).
Regarding claims 6, 10 & 14-16, Phares as modified by Zhamu teaches the hybrid solid electrolyte particulate of claim 1 but is silent as to the first liquid solvent being selected from a phosphate, phosphonate, phosphinate, phosphine or phosphine oxide having the structure recited in claim 6 and the first liquid solvent comprising a compound selected from the group recited in instant claims 10 & 14-16. Yoon teaches a polymer electrolyte comprising a polymer that is a polymerization or crosslinking product of a reactive additive comprising a first liquid solvent that is polymerizable and/or crosslinkable and comprising (i) a phosphate such as an allyl type monomer bearing a phosphonate moiety, (ii) a siloxane such as alkylsiloxane; and (iii) fluorinated vinyl monomers ([0029]-[0034], [0039], [0041] & [0054]-[0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to include fluorinated vinyl monomers and a siloxane compound, as described above, in Phares’s first liquid solvent in order to improve the stability of the electrolyte solution by helping to form a solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) with high stability due to the siloxane group contained in the side chain of the resulting polymer and to improve the stability at high temperature and high voltage of a battery through the fluorinated vinyl monomers as taught by Yoon ([0022] & [0036]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to include a phosphate compound, as described above, in Phares’s first liquid solvent in order to further improve the stability at high temperature as taught by Yoon ([0054]).
Regarding claim 19, Phares teaches the hybrid solid electrolyte particulate of claim 4 but is silent as to the initiator being selected from one of the compounds recited in claim 19. However, azo compounds and benzoyl peroxide (BPO) are well-known in initiators in the art that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to use to cause a polymerization reaction as evidenced by Yoon ([0101]-[0102]). “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phares (US 2022/0069337 A1) and Zhamu (US 2019/0173079 A1), as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 9, 13, 17-18, 20-27, 30-32 & 34-39 above, and further in view of Allcock (US 6,605,237 B2) and Allcock (“Ambient Temperature Synthesis of Poly(dichlorophosphazene) with Molecular Weight Control”) which is incorporated by reference in Allcock (US 6,605,237 B2).
Regarding claims 7-8, Phares as modified by Zhamu teaches the hybrid solid electrolyte particulate of claim 1 but is silent as to the first liquid solvent comprising a phosphoranimine having the structure recited in claims 7-8. Allcock teaches a polymer electrolyte comprising a polymer that is a polymerization or crosslinking product of a reactive additive comprising a first liquid solvent that is polymerizable and/or crosslinkable and comprising a phosphoranimine having the structure recited in instant claims 7-8 (Col. 3, L.43-67 & Col. 6, L.23-39). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to include a phosphoranimine having the structure recited in instant claims 7-8 in Phares’s first liquid solvent in order to form a polyphosphazene based polymer electrolyte which is suitability for use as a gel polymer electrolyte having mechanical stability and improved ionic conductivity as taught by Allcock (Col. 3, L.43-67).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 & 3-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. As presently claimed, the subject matter of claim 1 is found to be obvious over the combined teachings of Phares and Zhamu as noted in the above updated rejection of claim 1. Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 1 & 3-41 stand rejected.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm (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, BARBARA GILLIAM can be reached on (571)272-1330. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727