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 Amendment
This is a final Office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 04/11/2025. Claim 1 and 5 – 6 are amended. Claim 18 – 20 are new. Claim 1 – 13 and 18 – 20 are pending review in the current Office action.
The 35 U.S.C 103 rejections set forth in the previous Office action are withdrawn. A new grounds of rejection, necessitated by applicant’s amendment(s) is presented below.
In the previous Office action, the examiner refers to the prior art: JP2011054463A as Ishishiro, examiner acknowledges that this name was incorrect, and in the current office action, the examiner corrects the name to Ishidai.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 5, see pg. 7 of arguments filed 04/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically applicant argues that Maruyama fails to teach/explicitly disclose/suggest the claimed molar content of unsaturated monomer. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that, as discussed below, Murayama teaches a controlling the amount of cationic monomer {i.e. corresponds to corresponds to unsaturated monomer having the nitrogen-containing cationic functional group} to be within a particular weight range, and further teaches controlling the amount to optimize the transport number of lithium ions. Furthermore, based on the weight ranges taught by Murayama, and the photocurable composition example taught by the applicant, it appears that Murayama teaches a weight amount of cationic monomer that is exemplified by the applicant. As such, absent additional evidence that Murayama teachings necessarily fall outside the recited ranges/by demonstrating the instant range’s criticality, it appears that Murayama’s taught range could provide a molar content overlapping/encompassing the claimed range, and further that one with ordinary skill in the art could routinely optimize the molar content to balance the effects of the other components in the composition and the transport number of lithium ions, as established in the rejection below.
Additionally, examiner acknowledges that a weight ratio and molar ratio of a component are not directly equivalent to each other; however, both represent a relative amount of a component in a composition, and thus the effects achieved by controlling a weight ratio of a component also necessarily relate the effects achieved by controlling a molar ratio of the same component.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 10, see pgs. 8 – 9 of arguments filed 04/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. {Examiner Note: Examiner’s citation of paragraphs [0092] and [0104] in Lee ‘677 was a typographical error and, in the current Office action, the examiner corrects the citation, as the relevant paragraphs are included in Ishidai not Lee ‘677.}
Specifically, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as established in the rejection below, Murayama in view of Lee teaches using inorganic materials also taught by Park as inorganic fillers for polymer electrolytes; Park teaches using core-shell inorganic particles with shells including at least one of silicon oxide, silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, zirconium oxide, zirconium nitride, zirconium oxynitride, and aluminum oxide achieve the benefits desired by modified Murayama {i.e. ion conductivity increase}; and Ishidai suggests that combinations of inorganic oxides including Groups IIA to VA metals, such magnesium, silicon, zirconium, and titanium are suitable core-shell inorganic filler particle materials. Therefore, since Murayama in view of Lee already teaches using materials also taught in Park and Ishidai, Park teaches that inorganic particles with a core-shell structure can include more than one metal oxide in the shell portion, and Ishidai suggests that inorganic oxide combinations of silicon and titanium are suitable inorganic filler particles, and all the prior art is relevant to polymer/gel electrolyte compositions, the prior art rejections of claims 9 – 10 appear proper and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection made in further view of Park is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 – 7, 11, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama (US 6,420,072 B1, cited in previous Office action mailed 12/13/2024) in view of Lee (US PG Pub. 2005/0196677 A1, cited in previous Office action mailed 12/13/2024), Ishidai (JP2011054463A, cited in previous Office action mailed 12/13/2024), and Choi (WO2018190644A1, Machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 1, Maruyama discloses a polyelectrolyte gel membrane which reads on the being a single-ion conducting polymer solid electrolyte, because the polyelectrolyte gel membrane is taught by Maruyama to be formed from polymeric and electrolytic components and used as a secondary battery cell electrolyte (Col. 4, lines 4 – 16; Col. 9, lines 33 – 39; Col. 12, lines 54 – 56), comprising: a network polymer (polymer component possessing cross-linked, three dimensionally reticulated structure; Col. 4, lines 4 – 16) and an electrolyte (Col. 4, lines 4 – 16; Col. 9, lines 33 – 39), wherein the network polymer contains a structural unit containing a cationic group (Col. 4, lines 17 – 21).
Maruyama teaches a desire to obtain a polyelectrolytic gel with improvements in heat resistance, durability, and ion conductivity (Col. 1, lines 64 – 67). Maruyama further teaches conducting solution polymerization and crosslinking by heating or irradiation with ultraviolet or electron rays (Col. 10, lines 17 – 25).
Maruyama does not disclose the polyelectrolyte gel membrane comprising inorganic nanoparticles.
Lee teaches adding a cationic single-ion conducting inorganic filler particles to a polymer matrix of a lithium ion secondary battery polymer electrolyte to achieve an increase in ionic conductivity ([0017];[0021];[0042]). The cationic inorganic filler particles are further taught by Lee to increase high rate discharge characteristics and prevent an increase of inner resistance during charging and discharge cycling ([0021]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gel membrane of Maruyama by adding a cationic inorganic filler, as taught by Lee, with a reasonable expectation of success in further improving the ionic conductivity of Maruyama’s polyelectrolyte gel membrane and achieving improved charging/discharging characteristics.
Lee further teaches the inorganic filler particles being selected from silica, talc, alumina, titanium dioxide, zeolite, molybdenum phosphate hydrate, or tungsten phosphate hydrate ([0042]).
Modified Murayama does not particularly disclose the particles to be nanoparticles.
Ishidai teaches, when adding inorganic filler particles to a solid polymer electrolyte composition for a secondary battery, having the particle size be 100 nm or less, and more preferably 20 nm or less ([0029 – 0030];[0092];[110]). Ishidai further teaches that particle sizes greater than 100 nm will have greater difficultly gelling ionic liquid with sufficient strength when forming the electrolyte ([0110]). Like the particles of Lee, the inorganic filler particles of Ishidai are taught to provide improvements in ionic conductivity and also may be inorganic oxides ([0104 – 0105]).
Since modified Murayama’s electrolyte is a gel electrolyte and includes inorganic filler particles with a similar function to Ishidai’s particles, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to particularly control the particle size be on the nanoscale, as taught by Ishidai, and thus obtain the claimed inorganic nanoparticles, with a reasonable expectation of success that such a particle size selection would be suitable for the particles of modified Murayama and further be capable of achieving the desired ionic conductivity improvement effect.
Murayama teaches controlling the molecular weight of the non-crosslinked polymer component of the electrolyte composition for the purpose of ensuring that that viscosity of the component solution does not become too high and thus hard to handle (Col. 8, lines 45 – 57), but does not specifically disclose wherein the single-ion conducting polymer electrolyte has a viscosity of 102 to 104 cP.
Choi teaches a polymer solid electrolyte and teaches controlling the viscosity of the polymer electrolyte composition be within the range of 200 to 1,000 cP to enable a viscosity that improves film processability when producing the solid electrolyte into a film ([0065 – 0067];[0071]). Choi further teaches that a high viscosity reduces workability of the composition and a lower viscosity makes the manufacturing process of the polymer solid electrolyte membrane difficult ([0069]).
Since Murayama teaches using their gel composition to form a gel electrolyte membrane for a battery (Col. 12, lines 46 – 56), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the viscosity of modified Murayama’s gel electrolyte composition to be within the range taught by Choi, which is within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a gel electrolyte composition with suitable workability and processability.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Maruyama discloses all limitations as set forth above. Maruyama further teaches that the cationic functional group is a nitrogen-containing cationic functional group such as a free primary amino group, a free secondary amino group, a primary ammonium based, a secondary ammonium base, a tertiary ammonium base, or a quaternary ammonium base (Col. 4 lines 65 – 67; Col. 5 lines 7). In examples 27, 51, and 62, Maruyama particularly discloses embodiments of the polyelectrolyte gel that include N-trimethylaminoethyl methacrylate hydroxide, a quaternary ammonium compound, for the monomer having a nitrogen-containing cationic functional group (Col. 19, lines 1 – 11; Col. 25, lines 1 – 7; Col. 28 lines 15 – 23); therefore, Maruyama further discloses wherein the cationic group includes a quaternary ammonium group.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Maruyama discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Murayama further discloses wherein the inorganic nanoparticles are cationic inorganic nanoparticles (Lee: ([0017];[0021];[0042]).
Regarding Claims 4, modified Maruyama discloses all limitations as set forth above. Maruyama further discloses wherein the network polymer {i.e. polymer component} is polymerized from a composition containing a cationic monomer {i.e. monomer having nitrogen-containing functional group} and a polyfunctional monomer {i.e. crosslinkable monomer having at least two reactive functional groups} (Col. 5, lines 21 – 28 and lines 38 – 53; Col. 7, lines 55 – 67; Col. 8, lines 1 – 7).
Murayama does not explicitly disclose the composition to be photocurable; however, one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the composition to be photocurable, because Murayama exemplifies polymerizing by ultraviolet rays with benzyldimethyl ketal as a polymerization catalyst (Refer to Example 42; Col, 21 lines 27 – 42), and such a curing method and polymerization catalyst [i.e. photoinitiator} are disclosed to be used to polymerize the photocurable composition claimed/disclosed by the applicant in the instant specification (instant specification: [0081];[0086]).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Maruyama discloses all limitations as set forth above. Maruyama teaches using an amount of cationic monomer {i.e. corresponds to unsaturated monomer having the nitrogen-containing cationic functional group } of 1 to 100 parts by weight, per 100 parts by weight of the unsaturated monomer free of the nitrogen-containing cationic functional group, and further teaches using 1 to 50 parts by weight of the polyfunctional monomer {i.e. correspond to crosslinkable monomer}, per 100 parts by weight of the unsaturated monomer free of the nitrogen-containing cationic functional group (Col. 7 lines, 1 – 10 and lines 33 – 39). With respect to the polymerization catalyst, Maruyama teaches using 0.01 to about 5% by weight based on the total amount of monomers (Col. 11, lines 66 – 67; Col. 12, lines 1 – 3). The amount of nonaqueous solvent in the gel is preferably about 100 to 5,000 parts by weight of the polymer component, and is taught to be controlled for the purpose of optimizing the mechanical properties {e.g. flexibility/softness} and processability of the gel electrolyte (Col. 10, lines 4 – 14).
In the instant specification, based on the weight of the components shown, the applicant exemplifies using about 33 wt% of the cationic monomer {i.e. DADMA-LiTFSI}, to prepare the photocurable composition ([0112 – 0113]).
As such, one with ordinary skill int art could reasonably expect, based on the taught weight ratios of components, and further the applicant’s preparation example, Maruyama’s weight ratio to be capable of providing a ratio of a molar content of the cationic monomer to a total molar content of the photocurable composition that overlaps or at least encompass the claimed range of 45 – 55 mol%.
Furthermore, Maruyama teaches controlling the amount of cationic monomer to optimize the transport number of lithium ions, which corresponds to the reasoning taught by the applicant in the instant specification ([0044 – 0045]), and teaches controlling the amount of crosslinkable monomer to control the degree of crosslinking {i.e. higher degree makes it easier to solidify gel} and increase heat resistance (Col. 7 lines 6 – 10 and lines 39 – 48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the weight amount of cationic monomer, and thus, by extension control the molar amount of cationic monomer, to be within the overlapping portion of the claimed range and Maruyama’s taught range, to optimize the lithium ion transport capabilities and crosslinking degree of Maruyama’s polyelectrolyte gel, in addition to the effects of the other components, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Regarding Claim 6, modified Maruyama discloses all limitations as set forth above. Maruyama further teaches that the number of nitrogen-containing cationic functional groups, which correspond to the claimed polymerizable functional groups, is not limited to one group per molecule and teaches that there can be two or more as an alternative to a single group (Col. 6, lines 10 – 15 and lines 25 – 31).
Since Maruyama presents cationic monomers {i.e. unsaturated monomers having nitrogen containing the cationic functional group} including two or more nitrogen-containing cationic functional groups as an obvious variant to cationic monomers having a single group, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to select a cationic monomer with two or more nitrogen-containing cationic functional groups, and thus obtain a monomer with a number of functional groups that overlaps the claimed range two to six polymerizable functional groups, with a reasonable expectation of success that such a selection would be a suitable cationic monomer for the polyelectrolyte gel of Maruyama.
The nitrogen-containing functional group is taught to scavenge counter ions from the lithium compound used as electrolyte in the gel, and by doing so, enhances the transport number of lithium ions (Col. 4, lines 33 – 40). The functional groups included in the polymer components are also suggested to be essential to retaining the structure of the gel {i.e. needed for crosslinking} (Col. 5, lines 7 – 28).
Absent demonstrated criticality, selection of a number of functional groups within the overlapping portion of the claimed range and the taught range would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely optimize the transport number of lithium ions and gel electrolyte structure, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [see MPEP 214405(II)].
Regarding Claims 7 and 18, modified Maruyama discloses all limitations as set forth above. Maruyama teaches a finite list of crosslinkable monomers {i.e. corresponds to claimed polyfunctional monomer} that overlaps in scope with the list of polyol ester-based acrylic compounds exemplified by the applicant in the instant specification (Maruyama: Col. 7, lines 58 – 67 and Col. 8, lines 1 – 14; Instant specification: [0058]).
Maruyama does not explicitly disclose an embodiment wherein the polyfunctional monomer is a polyol ester-based acrylic compound (Claim 7).
However, since Maruyama teaches a finite list of crosslinkable monomers, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select a crosslinkable monomer within the overlapping scope of Maruyama taught examples and the applicant’s taught examples, and thus obtain a polyfunctional monomer that is a polyol ester-based acrylic compound, with a reasonable expectation of success that such a selection would be a suitable crosslinkable monomer for the polyelectrolyte gel of Maruyama.
As established above, the crosslinkable monomer {i.e. corresponds to claimed polyfunctional monomer} of modified Maruyama is a polyol ester-based acrylic compound, such as trimethylolpropane triacrylate {i.e. example monomer included in overlapping portion of Maruyama’s taught list and the list included in the instant specification} (Col. 8, lines 1 – 14; Instant specification: [0058]). The crosslinkable monomers taught by Maruyama are taught to generally have at least two reaction functional groups and Maruyama exemplifies using compounds having up to four or more reactive functional groups (Col. 7, lines 55 – 57 and Col 8, lines 13 – 15). Maruyama further teaches that the number of nitrogen-containing cationic functional groups, which correspond to the claimed polymerizable functional groups, is not limited to one group per molecule and teaches that there can be two or more as an alternative to a single group (Col. 6, lines 10 – 15 and lines 25 – 31).
As such, Murayama teaches amounts of functional groups for the polyol ester-based acrylic compound {i.e. crosslinkable monomer} and cationic monomer capable of providing the claimed structure of wherein a number of polymerizable functional groups of the polyol ester-based acrylic compound is greater than a number of polymerizable functional groups of the cationic monomer (Claim 18), but does not explicitly disclose an embodiment with the clamed structure.
The reactive functional groups on the crosslinking monomer is taught to allow for the crosslinked polymer structure of the gel electrolyte (Col. 7, lines 11 – 32). Additionally, the amount of crosslinkable monomer is taught to effect the degree of crosslinking, specifically a smaller amount of crosslinkable monomer results in a lower degree of crosslinking {i.e. low hear resistance/difficult to solidify gel} while a larger amount of crosslinkable monomer results in a higher degree of crosslinking {i.e. harder, more brittle polymer/high chance of gel developing cracks} (Col. 7, lines 33 – 48). One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, since the reactive functional groups on the crosslinking monomer are responsible for crosslinking, that the number of reactive groups would also affect the crosslinking degree. The nitrogen-containing functional group is taught to scavenge counter ions from the lithium compound used as electrolyte in the gel, and by doing so, enhances the transport number of lithium ions (Col. 4, lines 33 – 40).
However, absent demonstrated criticality, selection of a number of functional groups for the polyol ester-based acrylic compound and cationic monomer that provides the claimed structure would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, because such a number of functional groups is within the scope of Murayama’s taught ranges, and would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing a gel electrolyte with the desired crosslinked polymer structure and transport number of lithium ions.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Maruyama discloses all limitations as set forth above. The example gel membranes of Maruyama were disclosed to provide ion conductivities ranging from 3.0 x 10-3 S/cm – 4.0 x 10-3 S/cm (Refer to Example conductivities shown in Tables 1 – 5), which is within the claimed range of 1.0 x 10-7 S/cm to 1.0 x 10-2 S/cm.
Murayama does not explicitly disclose a lithium-ion (Li+) transference number of 0.5 to 1.0; however, since Murayama teaches an ionic conductivity within the claimed range, and modified Murayama renders obvious the claimed solid polymer electrolyte composition and structure disclosed to provide the claimed property (instant specification: [0038 – 0039];[0045]), a skilled artisan would reasonably expect the electrolyte of modified Murayama to have the claimed lithium-ion (Li+) transference number.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama (US 6,420,072 B1), Lee (US PG Pub. 2005/0196677 A1), Ishidai (JP2011054463A) and Choi (WO2018190644A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi (KR20030022588A, Machine translation provided), hereinafter Choi II.
Regarding Claim 8 and 20, modified Maruyama discloses all limitations as set forth above. Murayama further teaches including electrolyte in the polyelectrolytic gel composition, and the electrolyte exists dissolved in nonaqueous solvent (Col. 4, lines 4 – 16). The solvent is taught to be included in an amount of about 100 to about 5,000 parts by weight, per 100 parts by weight of the polymer component {i.e. corresponds to claimed photocurable composition} of the gel; therefore, Murayama teaches using electrolyte {i.e. electrolyte salt dissolved in the solvent} in an amount that overlaps the claimed ranges of 50 to 300 parts by weight (Claim 8) and further 100 to 150 parts by weight (Claim 20), with respect to 100 parts by weight of the photocurable composition.
Murayama further teaches that lower amounts of the electrolyte solvent decreases the flexibility and processability of the gel while higher amounts of electrolyte solvent leaves a non-solid/viscous product or causes phase separation of the gel and solvent (Col. 10, lines 4 – 14).
Selection of an amount of electrolyte within the overlapping portion of Murayama’s taught range and the claimed range would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the structure, flexibility, and processability of the Murayama’s gel electrolyte, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Modified Murayama includes cationic inorganic filler nanoparticles selected from materials such as silica, talc, alumina, titanium dioxide, zeolite, molybdenum phosphate hydrate, or tungsten phosphate hydrate (Lee: [0042] and Ishidai: [110]).
Lee further teaches including the filler in an amount of 1 – 100 wt% based on the total amount of polymers constituting the polymer matrix ([0048]); therefore, modified Murayama includes cationic inorganic filler nanoparticles in an amount overlapping the claimed range of 10 to 300 parts by weight (Claim 8 cont.) and further 70 to 150 parts by weight (Claim 20 cont.), with respective to 100 parts by weight of the photocurable composition.
Choi II teaches a polymer electrolyte including a polymer resin for forming a matrix, an inorganic filler, a plasticizer, and a solvent ([15];[38]). The Choi II teaches using inorganic filler such as silica, kaolin, and alumina, and further teaches having the content of inorganic filler be within the range of 10 – 200 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the polymer resin ([40]). Choi II further teaches the inorganic filler plays a role in improving the mechanical strength of the polymer electrolyte, and increases in the content of inorganic filler allow for improvements in ion conductivity and mechanical property properties while excessive amounts of inorganic filler {i.e. above taught range} can negatively impact the film formation capability of the electrolyte composition ([40]).
Selection of an amount of inorganic particles within the overlapping portion of Modified Murayama’s taught range, the range taught by Choi II, and the claimed range would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the mechanical characteristics and ionic conductivity of modified Murayama’s gel electrolyte, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Claim(s) 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama (US 6,420,072 B1), Lee (US PG Pub. 2005/0196677 A1), Ishidai (JP2011054463A) and Choi (WO2018190644A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Park (KR20180020423A, cited in previous Office action mailed 12/13/2024).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, modified Maruyama discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Murayama includes cationic inorganic filler nanoparticles selected from materials such as silica, talc, alumina, titanium dioxide, zeolite, molybdenum phosphate hydrate, or tungsten phosphate hydrate (Lee: [0042] and Ishidai: [110]).
Modified Murayama does not explicitly disclose the cationic inorganic nanoparticles being coated with a metal oxide layer (Claim 9) and further the metal oxide layer containing titanium dioxide and silicon dioxide (Claim 10).
Park teaches a gel polymer electrolyte membrane including modified inorganic particles having a core-shell structure where the core portion includes aluminum-doped lithium lanthanum titanate (A-LLTO), lithium aluminum germanium phosphate (LAGP), or lithium aluminum titanium phosphate (LATP), and the shell portion includes at least one of silicon oxide, silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, zirconium oxide, zirconium nitride, zirconium oxynitride, and aluminum oxide ([0010];[0013];[0016 – 0019]). Park further teaches a particular embodiment of the core-shell particles including LLTO as the core and m-SiO2 as the shell (Figs. 4 and 6; [0088]). The core-shell structure is taught to allow for improvements in ionic conductivity and the suppression of lithium dendrite growth, and the SiO2 shell is further particularly taught to provide increased chemical stability even when in contact with lithium metal ([0083];[0090]).
Since modified Murayama already teaches, from a finite list of materials, using silica as an inorganic particle material, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use, as the inorganic particles of modified Murayama, inorganic particles with a core-shell structure including silicon dioxide, as taught and exemplified by Park, and obtain the claimed inorganic particle with a metal oxide coating layer, with a reasonable expectation of success that such a structure would be suitable for the inorganic particles of modified Murayama’s gel electrolyte and further capable of achieving the desired ionic conductivity improvement effect as well as the benefits of lithium dendrite growth inhibition and increased chemical stability.
Ishidai further teaches that combinations of inorganic oxides including Groups IIA to VA metals, such magnesium, silicon, zirconium, and titanium are suitable core-shell inorganic filler particle materials, and further that such materials are capable of providing ionic conductivity improvements ([0092];[0104]).
Therefore, because Park teaches that more than one material can included in the shell layer of the particles, and Lee teaches that silicon and titanium oxides are a compatible combination of inorganic oxides for core-shell structures of inorganic particles, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further include titanium dioxide in the shell of modified Murayama’s inorganic particles, with a reasonable expectation of success in further achieving the ionic conductivity improvement effect desired by modified Murayama.
Claim(s) 12 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama (US 6,420,072 B1), Lee (US PG Pub. 2005/0196677 A1), Ishida (JP2011054463A) and Choi (WO2018190644A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US PG Pub. 2016/0087306 A1, cited in previous Office action mailed 12/13/2024), hereinafter Lee II.
Regarding Claims 12 – 13, modified Maruyama discloses all limitations as set forth above. While Murayama teaches using the gel as an electrolyte for a secondary battery (Col. 12, lines 54 – 56), Murayama does teach the particulars of the secondary battery.
Therefore, modified Murayama does not explicitly disclose a lithium-metal battery comprising the single-ion conducting polymer solid electrolyte of claim 1 (Claim 12).
Lee2 teaches, from a finite list of electrolyte types, that gel electrolytes are applicable in lithium metal batteries ([0241 – 0243]).
Since lithium metal batteries are a type of secondary battery that, as taught by Lee2, may include gel electrolyte, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the gel electrolyte of modified Murayama in a lithium metal battery, such as the one taught by Lee2, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a functioning lithium metal battery with a suitable electrolyte material.
Modified Murayama does not explicitly disclose where the lithium-metal battery is operated at 4.0 V or higher (Claim 13); however, since modified Murayama renders obvious the claimed lithium metal battery structure {i.e. lithium metal battery with solid polymer electrolyte of claim 1}, in addition to the disclosed positive electrode material (Lee2: [0250 – 0252]; Instant specification: [0096]), one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the battery of modified Murayama to be capable of operating at the claimed operating voltage range. {Examiner Note: The recitation “is operated at 4.0 V or higher” appears to establish an intended use for the claimed battery rather than a distinct definition of the claimed invention’s limitations, and a claim containing recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim [See MPEP 2114(II)].}
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama (US 6,420,072 B1), Lee (US PG Pub. 2005/0196677 A1), Ishidai (JP2011054463A) and Choi (WO2018190644A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujioka (US PG Pub. US 2012/0321963 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Murayama discloses all limitations as set forth above. Murayama generally teaches the unsaturated monomer having nitrogen-containing cationic functional group to be a monomer having functional groups such as primary amino group, secondary amino group, tertiary amino group, primary ammonium base, secondary ammonium base, tertiary ammonium base, quaternary ammonium base, nitrogen-containing heterocyclic residue, residue of heterocyclic salt which has become a cation or the like (Col. 5, lines 64 – 67 and Col. 6, lines 1 – 4).
Modified Murayama does not explicitly disclose wherein the cationic monomer comprising diallyldimethyl ammonium bromide or diallyldimethyl ammonium chloride.
Fujioka teaches a gel electrolyte composition including vinyl acetal polymer containing a cationic functional group ([0034]). The polymer is further taught to be prepared by acetalizing a copolymer of a vinyl ester monomer and a polymerizable monomer having a cationic functional group, and Fujioka teaches a preference for using diallyldimethylammonium chloride, (3-methacrylamidepropyl) trimethylammonium chloride and (3-acrylamide-3,3-dimethylpropyl)trimethylammonium chloride as the polymerizable monomers having a cationic functional group ([0026]). Diallyldimethylammonium is taught by Fujioka to be monomer comprising a quaternary ammonium group ([0049]).
Since Murayama generally teaches using monomers having a nitrogen-containing cationic functional group and exemplifies quaternary ammonium groups as a suitable functional group, and since Fujioka teaches a finite list of preferred monomers, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a monomer comprising diallyldimethylammonium chloride, as taught by Fujioka, and thus obtain a cationic monomer within the claimed scope, with a reasonable expectation of success that such a selection of monomer would be suitable for the gel electrolyte composition of modified Murayama.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ARYANA Y ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM - 5:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.Y.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 7/29/2025
Prosecution Insights