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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/12/2025 and 11/04/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 10/31/2025 has been entered. Claim 1 is amended, Claim 31 is canceled and Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-13, 15, 18-30, and 32-40 are 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.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arya et al. (Insights into the use of polyethylene oxide in energy storage/conversion devices: a critical review, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 50 443002, 2017), hereinafter “Arya” in view of Hu et al. (WO2018183771A1 – Machine Translation), hereinafter “Hu”. Arya and Hu et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely polymer based members for electrochemical devices.
In regard to Claim 1, Arya et al. discloses a method for manufacturing a member for an electrochemical device (Arya, Abstract), the method comprising performing at least one shaping operation selected of hot pressing, which corresponds to pressure molding and thickness reduction or uniformization by pressurizing (Arya, Page 9, 3.1.2.).
Arya et al. also discloses performing the shaping operations of Group A performed on a shaping material composition that comprises: at least one filler (F) (Arya, Pages 26-28); a plasticizer (P-S), being water, an ionic liquid, or a mixture thereof (Arya, Page 7, 2.3.1.); and a polymer (P1) (Arya, Page 11, 4.1.). Arya et al. also discloses the shaping material composition being substantially free of an organic solvent (Arya, Page 7, 2.3.3.) and which has plasticity and a self-supporting property i.e. free standing and flexible (Arya, Abstract and 3.1.1.). Arya et al. discloses a solid, mechanically robust and free standing shaping composition which would allow for the skilled artisan to find the self-supporting property means that, under conditions of 25°C, the shaping material can be at least shaped into a sheet with dimensions of 10 mmx10 mmx2 mm, the sheet does not flow and the shape does not change for at least one hour when placed onto a flat table, and the sheet can be gripped and lifted with tweezers having an area of 1/10 cm2 or less from the edge of the sheet (Arya, Abstract and 3.1.1.). Further, Arya et al. discloses a shaping composition wherein the amount of the plasticizer (P-S) is 5% by weight or more based on the total amount of the polymer in the shaping material composition by disclosing a specific example with 10 wt.% EMIMTFSI (Arya, Page 18).
Finally, Arya et al. discloses a PEO based member being provided as a separator/electrolyte and that during the operation of a battery, the PEO plays an important role as it provides a path for the swimming of ions between the electrodes (Arya, Abstract, Section 2.2), but is silent as to the PEO based member being provided as an electrode.
Hu et al. also discloses a PEO based member and the uses thereof, wherein the member can be provided as a separator/electrolyte (Hu, [0010, 0130]), consistent with Arya, as well as the same PEO based member being infiltrated with cathode or anode materials (Hu, [0133, 0143]), thus the member is provided as an electrode. Hu et al. also discloses a specific example where the member is infiltrated with a cathode material to achieve the benefits of forming a hybrid member that encapsulates active materials directly into the pores wherein these pores can be tailored to accommodate volume change of active materials thus keeping battery structure stable during cycling and results in a battery that exhibited a high initial coulombic efficiency (>99.8%) and high coulombic efficiency (>99%) for each following cycle, and where no chemical or physical short circuit was observed in the hybrid system (Hu, Example 2, [0174]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a PEO based member as disclosed in Arya et al. as a beneficial electrode as taught in Hu et al., as doing so would give the skilled artisan of Arya the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Hu et al. and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to Claim 2, Arya in view of Hu et al. discloses the method according to claim 1. Arya et al. also discloses wherein the polymer (P1) is a polymer also capable of being plasticized by an electrolytic solution solvent (E-S) by disclosing a specific example using PEO as the polymer P1 (Arya, Page 11, 4.1.), which is also chosen as the polymer P1 to be plasticized by and electrolytic solution solvent in the original specification (Original Specification, Paragraph [0073]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a polymer also capable of being plasticized by an electrolytic solution solvent taught in Arya as doing so is nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
In regard to Claim 4, Arya in view of Hu et al. discloses the method according to claim 1. Arya et al. also discloses wherein the polymer (P1) is a polymer containing ethylene oxide (EO) as a monomer unit by disclosing a specific example using PEO as the polymer P1 (Arya, Page 11, 4.1.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a polymer containing ethylene oxide (EO) as a monomer unit taught in Arya as doing so is nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
In regard to Claim 5, Arya in view of Hu et al. discloses the method according to claim 1. Arya et al. discloses the use of PEO based shaping compositions containing LiFePO4 active material (Arya, Page 22) and LiMn2O4 active material (Arya, Figure 17 (d)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a filler (F) comprising an active material at the discretion of the skilled artisan when the member for an electrochemical device requires it as doing so is nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
In regard to Claim 7, Arya in view of Hu et al. discloses the method according to claim 1. Arya et al. discloses a ceramic nanofiller (Arya, Page 43, 5.4.1.) and a PEO based member with carbon nanotube filler (Arya, Page 22) which are commonly used in fibrous form and which is one of the fibrous fillers mentioned in the original specification (Original Specification, Paragraph [0051]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a fibrous filler, as doing so would be nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
In regard to Claim 12, Arya in view of Hu et al. discloses the method according to claim 1. Arya et al. also discloses wherein the filler (F) is nanosized by disclosing the use of a ceramic nanofiller (Arya, Page 43, 5.4.1.). Thus, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to provide a nanosized filler as opposed to a filler larger than nanosized, as doing so would be nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 15, 18, 20, 23-25, 30, 32-37, and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arya et al. (Insights into the use of polyethylene oxide in energy storage/conversion devices: a critical review, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 50 443002, 2017), hereinafter “Arya” in view of Hu et al. (WO2018183771A1 – Machine Translation), hereinafter “Hu” as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Birke et al. (US 20080113272 A1), hereinafter “Birke”. Arya, Hu and Birke et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely polymer based members for electrochemical devices.
In regard to Claim 15, Arya in view of Hu et al. discloses the method according to claim 1. While Arya fails to explicitly disclose crosslinking the polymer (P1) Birke et al. discloses crosslinking the polymer with UV or electron radiation which constitutes irreversibly crosslinking the polymer (P 1) (Birke, Paragraph [0040]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide an irreversibly crosslinked polymer as taught in Birke as doing so would be nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claim 18, Arya in view of Hu and further in view of Birke et al. discloses the method according to claim 15. While Arya et al. discloses the addition of salt in the pure polymer host increased the Tg and indicated a reduction in the flexibility of PEO chains, due to crosslinking of the polymer through the salt (Arya, Pages 23-24) Arya fails to explicitly disclose wherein a crosslinking agent is added in the shaping material composition. Birke et al. discloses cross-linkable resin masses (pre-condensates) are used and cured by UV or electron radiation and if necessary, suitable initiators or accelerators or the like are added to the masses for respective cross-linking thus disclosing a crosslinking agent is added in the shaping material composition (Birke, Paragraph ]0040]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a crosslinking agent in the shaping material composition as necessary as doing so is nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
In regard to Claim 20, Arya in view of Hu and further in view of Birke et al. discloses the method according to claim 15. While Arya et al fails to explicitly disclose a self crosslinkable polymer, Birke et al. discloses a polymer that includes an epoxy group (Birke, Paragraph [0024]) which is within the description of a self crosslinkable polymer in the original specification (Original Specification, Paragraph [0089]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a self crosslinkable polymer vs a non self crosslinkable polymer at the discretion of the skilled artisan, as doing so is obvious to try and nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regard to Claim 23, Arya in view of Hu et al. discloses the method according to claim 1. While Arya et al. discloses casting and hot pressing it fails to explicitly disclose comprising obtaining a member by scraping from a lump of a shaping material composition. Birke et al. discloses using a spatula or knife coating method (i.e. scraping from a lump) for the formation of the member from the self-supporting shaping material composition (Birke, Paragraph [0023]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to obtain a member by scraping from a lump of a shaping material composition as doing so would be at the discretion of the skilled artisan and would be nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
In regard to Claim 24, Arya in view of Hu et al. discloses the method according to claim 1. While Arya et al. discloses casting and hot pressing it fails to explicitly disclose bonding the shaping material composition to a substrate. Birke et al. discloses applying and laminating (bonding) the shaping material composition to a substrate (Birke, Paragraph [0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a shaping material composition bonded to a substrate at the discretion of the skilled artisan as doing so would be nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claim 25, Arya et al. in view of Hu and further in view of Birke et al. discloses the method according to claim 24. While Arya et al. discloses casting and hot pressing it fails to explicitly disclose shaping the shaping material composition to a desired thickness and then bonding the shaping material composition to the substrate. Birke et al. discloses tape casting as well as the shaping material composition being formed in the appropriate thickness on calendars then laminated to a substate (Birke, Paragraph [0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a shaping material in a desired thickness before bonding to a substrate as doing so would be obvious to try by the skilled artisan and would be nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regard to Claim 30, Arya et al. in view of Hu and further in view of Birke et al. discloses the method according to claim 24. Arya et al. discloses spray casting or hot pressing but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the member is not cut or bored together with the substrate after the shaping material composition is bonded to the substrate. Birke et al. discloses free standing members stored in layers that have not yet been connected to an electrochemical composite layer (i.e. substrate) which can undergo flexible or variable shaping (i.e. cutting to size or boring) before being bonded to a substrate, thus the member is not cut or bored together with the substrate after the shaping material composition is bonded to the substrate (Birke, Paragraph [0041]). Thus, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to simply choose this order of operation based on the outcome required with the reasonable expectation of success.
In regard to Claim 32, Arya in view of Hu et al. discloses the method according to claim 1. Arya et al. discloses spray casting or hot pressing but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the shaping operation selected from Group A is performed at least once in a state in which the shaping material composition is not in contact with a current collector foil. Birke et al. discloses free standing members stored in layers that have not yet been connected to an electrochemical composite layer (i.e. substrate) which can undergo flexible or variable shaping (i.e. cutting to size or boring) before being bonded to a substrate, thus the shaping operation selected from Group A (cutting) is performed at least once in a state in which the shaping material composition is not in contact with a current collector foil (Birke, Paragraph [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to perform a shaping operation when the member is not in contact with a substrate as doing so would be at the discretion of the skilled artisan based on the member required, and would be nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regard to Claim 33, Arya in view of Hu et al. discloses the method according to claim 1. Arya et al. discloses spray casting or hot pressing but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the shaping operation selected from Group A is performed at least once in a state in which the shaping material composition is not in contact with a porous separator membrane. Birke et al. discloses free standing members stored in layers that have not yet been connected to an electrochemical composite layer (i.e. substrate) which can undergo flexible or variable shaping (i.e. cutting to size or boring) before being bonded to a substrate, thus the shaping operation selected from Group A (cutting) is performed at least once in a state in which the shaping material composition is not in contact with a porous separator membrane (Birke, Paragraph [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to perform a shaping operation when the member is not in contact with a substrate as doing so would be at the discretion of the skilled artisan based on the member required, and would be nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regard to Claim 34, Arya in view of Hu et al. discloses the method according to claim 1. Arya et al uses ionic liquid as the plasticizer and fails to explicitly disclose wherein a plasticizer (P-S) is water or a mixture of water and ionic liquid. Birke et al. discloses the use of water (plasticizer), lithium salt (filler) and PEO (polymer) in the shaping material composition (Birke Paragraph [0005]). Birke et al. also discloses that same composition being crosslinked and dried under vacuum thus removing the water (Birke Paragraph [0005]) and following a method comprising shaping the shaping material composition into a final shape for placing the member in a device and then removing moisture by a drying operation to allow the shaping material composition to become in a non-plasticized state. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a composition with a water based plasticizer and drying the composition to remove the water as doing so would be nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claim 35, Arya et al. in view of Hu and further in view of Birke et al. discloses the method according to claim 34. Arya et al uses ionic liquid as the plasticizer and fails to explicitly disclose wherein the drying operation is performed by vacuuming or heating. Birke et al. discloses the use of water (plasticizer), lithium salt (filler) and PEO (polymer) in the shaping material composition (Birke Paragraph [0005]). Birke et al. also discloses that same composition being crosslinked and dried under vacuum thus removing the water (Birke Paragraph [0005]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to perform vacuuming or heating to dry the composition as doing so would be nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regard to Claim 36, Arya in view of Hu and further in view of Birke et al. discloses the method according to claim 34. Arya et al uses ionic liquid as the plasticizer and fails to explicitly disclose wherein the drying operation is performed in a state in which the shaping material composition is not in contact with a current collector foil. Birke et al. discloses the use of water (plasticizer), lithium salt (filler) and PEO (polymer) in the shaping material composition (Birke Paragraph [0005]). Birke et al. also discloses that same composition being crosslinked and dried under vacuum and used as a solid polymer electrolyte (i.e. not in contact with a current collector foil) (Birke Paragraph [0005]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to perform vacuuming or heating to dry the composition while not in contact with a current collector foil as doing so would be at the discretion of the skilled artisan based on the member required and would be nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
In regard to Claim 37, Arya in view of Hu and further in view of Birke et al. discloses the method according to claim 34. Arya et al uses ionic liquid as the plasticizer and fails to explicitly disclose wherein the drying operation is performed in a state in which the shaping material composition is not in contact with a porous separator membrane. Birke et al. discloses the use of water (plasticizer), lithium salt (filler) and PEO (polymer) in the shaping material composition (Birke Paragraph [0005]). Birke et al. also discloses that same composition being crosslinked and dried under vacuum and used as a solid polymer electrolyte (i.e. not in contact with a porous separator membrane) (Birke Paragraph [0005]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to perform vacuuming or heating to dry the composition while not in contact with a porous separator membrane as doing so would be at the discretion of the skilled artisan based on the member required and would be nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
In regard to Claim 39, Arya in view of Hu et al. discloses the method according to claim 1. Arya et al. fails to explicitly disclose recovering a plasticized state by performing hydration or humidification again after the shaping material composition or the shaping material composition subjected to a crosslinking operation has become in a non-plasticized state. Birke et al discloses dried shaping material compositions free or mostly free from plasticizers (i.e. non plasticized state) with the benefit of a better storage stable intermediate product, which can then be rehydrated or humidified, in this case using electrolytic solution to bring the material back into a jellified (i.e. plasticized) state (Birke, Paragraph [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a shaping material composition with the dried non plasticized state which can then be rehydrated for use with the reasonable expectation of the skilled artisan achieving the benefit taught in Birke and as doing so would be nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claim 40, Arya in view of Hu et al. discloses the method according to claim 1. While Arya et al. fails to explicitly disclose manufacturing a next member again using an off-cut of a shaping material composition generated in a process of shaping the shaping material composition, Birke et al. discloses storing the shaping material composition in film that are either stacked or rolled up film webs with the benefit of being stored in a space saving manner, which can then be reasonably used to produce a next member (Birke, Paragraph [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a shaping material composition that can be stored on a roll to allow the skilled artisan the reasonable ability to achieve the benefit taught in Birke as doing so would be nothing more than the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Claims 3, 26-27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arya et al. (Insights into the use of polyethylene oxide in energy storage/conversion devices: a critical review, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 50 443002, 2017), hereinafter “Arya” in view of Hu et al. (WO2018183771A1 – Machine Translation), hereinafter “Hu” as applied to claim 1 above in view of Birke et al. (US 20080113272 A1), hereinafter “Birke” as applied to claim 24 above and further in view of Zhou et al. (WO 2010111087 A1 – Machine Translation), hereinafter “Zhou”. Arya, Hu, Birke, and Zhou et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely polymer based members for electrochemical devices.
In regard to Claim 3, Arya in view of Hu et al. discloses the method according to claim 1. Arya and Burke et al. disclose hygroscopic polymers such as PEO but fail to explicitly wherein the polymer (P1) is a deliquescent polymer. Zhou et al. discloses a shaping composition for an electrochemical member that includes a dimethylamine-epichlorohydrin-ethylenediamine copolymer (Zhou, Paragraph [0010]) which is the preferred deliquescent polymer in the original specification (Original Specification, Paragraph [0066]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a deliquescent polymer taught in Zhou to the shaping composition disclosed in Arya as doing so is nothing more than the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
In regard to Claim 26, Arya et al. in view Hu and further in view of Birke et al. discloses the method according to claim 24. Arya et al discloses hot pressing and spray casting and Birke et al discloses laminating a shaping material to a substrate but both fail to explicitly disclose bonding the shaping material composition substantially simultaneously to front and back sides of the substrate. Zhou et al. discloses a multilayered separator co extruded through a slotted die onto a substrate which is then bonded via heating or vacuum drying, wherein the multilayered separator may be applied to one or both sides of the porous substrate (Zhou, Paragraphs [00153-00154]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide shaping material composition on both sides of the substrate as taught in Zhou at the discretion of the skilled artisan, as doing so would be nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claim 27, Arya et al. in view of Hu and further in view of Birke et al. discloses the method according to claim 24. Arya et al discloses hot pressing and spray casting and Birke et al discloses laminating a shaping material to a substrate but both fail to explicitly disclose bonding the shaping material composition to a front side of the substrate and then also to a back side of the substrate.
Zhou et al. discloses a multilayered separator co extruded through a slotted die onto a substrate which is then bonded via heating or vacuum drying, wherein the multilayered separator may be applied to one or both sides of the porous substrate before bonding (Zhou, Paragraphs [00153-00154]). If the skilled artisan applies the shaping material composition to both sides of the substrate and bonds them at the same time or does it separately, that would be nothing more than the order of the steps they take, wherein the end result is the same. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to apply and bond the shaping material on one side of a substrate and then do the same on a second side as doing so would be obvious to try by the skilled artisan and would be nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regard to Claim 29, Arya et al. in view of Hu and further in view of Birke et al. discloses the method according to claim 24. Arya and Burke fail to explicitly disclose wherein the substrate comprises a polymer as a main component. Zhou et al. discloses a polymer based substrate to which the shaping material composition is bonded (Zhou, Paragraphs [00143-00146]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a polymer substrate as opposed to a non-polymer substrate as doing so would be nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arya et al. (Insights into the use of polyethylene oxide in energy storage/conversion devices: a critical review, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 50 443002, 2017), hereinafter “Arya” in view of Hu et al. (WO2018183771A1 – Machine Translation), hereinafter “Hu” as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Yushin et al. (US 20190198837 A1), hereinafter “Yushin”. Arya, Hu and Yushin et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely polymer based members for electrochemical devices.
In regard to Claim 8, Arya in view of Hu et al. discloses the method according to claim 7. Arya et al. discloses a ceramic filler (Arya, Page 43, 5.4.1.) and carbon nanotube filler (Arya, Page 22) but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the fibrous material has a fiber length of 10µm or more.
Yushin et al. discloses a member for an electrochemical device comprising ceramic filler with fiber length 50nm< fiber length < 5 mm but typically less than 500µm (Yushin, Paragraph [0053, 0079]) which overlaps the claimed range. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 9, Arya in view of Hu et al. discloses the method according to claim 7. Arya et al. and Hu et al. both disclose the use of fibrous material fillers but fail to explicitly disclose the fibrous material has a fiber length that is equal to or larger than a thickness of a member for an electrochemical device.
Yushin et al. discloses a member with a thickness of 3-60µm (Yushin, Paragraph 0062]) and a fiber length of the fibrous material of in the range of 50nm to 5mm with a typical fiber length of less than 500 µm (Yushin, Paragraph [0053, 0079]) which is larger than a thickness of a member for an electrochemical device of 3-60µm and teaches the benefit of enhanced mechanical stability (Yushin, Paragraph [0059]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a fibrous material that has a fiber length that is equal to or larger than a thickness of a member for an electrochemical device to achieve the benefit taught in Yoshin and as doing so would be nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claim 10, Arya in view of Hu et al. discloses the method according to claim 7. While Arya discloses a nanosized ceramic filler it fails to explicitly disclose wherein the fibrous material has a nanosized fiber diameter.
Yushin et al. discloses a fibrous material with a fiber diameter between 2nm and 1µm thus a nanosized fiber diameter, with the advantages over larger diameter fibers that include their higher strength, higher toughness and higher flexibility (e.g., each of which is important for improved mechanical stability during battery cycling), higher level of surface smoothness achievable in the separator layer (e.g., a standalone separator membrane or separator coating) (e.g., important for reduced stress concentration and thus improved mechanical stability during battery cycling), smaller pore size (and thus more robust protection against accidental internal shorts or permeation by small particles), smaller membrane thickness (and thus faster ion transport and higher cell-level energy density), among others (Yushin, Paragraph [0053]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a fibrous material having a nanosized fiber diameter which would give the skilled artisan the reasonable ability to achieve the benefits taught in Yushin and as doing so would be nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arya et al. (Insights into the use of polyethylene oxide in energy storage/conversion devices: a critical review, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 50 443002, 2017), hereinafter “Arya” in view of Hu et al. (WO2018183771A1 – Machine Translation), hereinafter “Hu” as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Bauer et al. (BR 9915069 B1 – Machine Translation), hereinafter “Bauer”. Arya, Hu and Bauer et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely polymer based members for electrochemical devices.
In regard to Claim 13, Arya in view of Hu et al. discloses the method according to claim 1. Arya et al. and Birke et al. disclose the wt% of the filler materials but fail to explicitly disclose wherein, a volume fraction occupied by the filler (F) in the shaping material composition is 50% by volume or more. Bauer et al. discloses a shaping material composition comprising a polymer, plasticizer and filler where the filler comprises 10 to 60 vol% by of a filler which overlaps the claimed range (Bauer, Paragraph [10]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arya et al. (Insights into the use of polyethylene oxide in energy storage/conversion devices: a critical review, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 50 443002, 2017), hereinafter “Arya” in view of Hu et al. (WO2018183771A1 – Machine Translation), hereinafter “Hu” as applied to claim 1 above in view of Birke et al. (US 20080113272 A1), “Birke” as applied to Claim 15 above and further in view of Friesen et al. (CN 110023294 A – Machine Translation), hereinafter “Friesen”. Arya, Hu, Birke, and Friesen et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely polymer based members for electrochemical devices.
In regard to Claim 19, Arya et al. in view of Hu and further in view of Birke et al. discloses the method according to claim 15. While Arya et al. discloses the addition of salt in the pure polymer host increased the Tg and indicated a reduction in the flexibility of PEO chains, due to crosslinking of the polymer through the salt (Arya, Pages 23-24) and Birke et al. discloses a crosslinking agent is added in the shaping material composition (Birke, Paragraph ]0040]) however, both fail to explicitly disclose wherein a crosslinking agent is added in an electrolytic solution.
Friesen et al. discloses a member with a polymer, filler, plasticizer that is substantially free of organic solvents and is self-supporting that also introduces a crosslinking agent into the ionic liquid electrolytic solution in the solid electrolyte member (Friesen, Abstract, Paragraph [4,15]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a crosslinking agent in the electrolytic solution at the discretion of the skilled artisan as doing so would be nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arya et al. (Insights into the use of polyethylene oxide in energy storage/conversion devices: a critical review, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 50 443002, 2017), hereinafter “Arya” in view of Hu et al. (WO2018183771A1 – Machine Translation), hereinafter “Hu” as applied to claim 1 above in view of Birke et al. (US 20080113272 A1), hereinafter “Birke” and further in view of ThermoScientific Iplus (Product Specifications, 2014).
In regard to Claim 21, Arya in view of Hu et al. discloses the method according to claim 1. While Arya discloses a requirement for thickness of the member to be within the range of 20-25 µm (Arya, Table 1) and Birke et al. discloses using an appropriate technology to ensure the thickness of the member (Birke, Paragraph [0039]), both fail to explicitly disclose controlling and feeding back a basis weight by measuring a thickness of a member.
ThermoScientic Iplus product brochure discloses measurement and control system used for measuring the thickness and feeding back basis weight of cast film extrusion, extrusion coating or sheet extrusion measurement and process control requirements (IPlus, Page 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a tool for the measurement of a thickness of the member to feedback the basis weight, such as the Thermoscientic Iplus, as doing so is nothing more than choosing the appropriate technology at the discretion of the skilled artisan as discussed in Birke and would allow for meeting the thickness requirement disclosed in Arya, which would be nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claims 22 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arya et al. (Insights into the use of polyethylene oxide in energy storage/conversion devices: a critical review, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 50 443002, 2017), hereinafter “Arya” in view of Hu et al. (WO2018183771A1 – Machine Translation), hereinafter “Hu” as applied to claim 1 above in view of Birke et al. (US 20080113272 A1), hereinafter “Birke” and further in view of Ohsawa et al. (US 20170279113 A1), hereinafter “Ohsawa”. Arya, Hu, Birke, and Ohsawa et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely polymer based members for electrochemical devices.
In regard to Claim 22, Arya et al. in view of Hu et al. discloses the method according to claim 1. Arya et al discloses hot pressing a shaping material composition and Birke et al. discloses calendering, extrusion, casting, brushing, spatula coating, knife coating (Birke, Paragraph [0023]) of the shaping material but both fail to explicitly disclose compressing a plurality of strands consisting of a shaping material composition to form a sheet.
Ohsawa et al. discloses a member consisting of a shaping material composition with a polymer, plasticizer and filler which is produced in a nonwoven web of fiber (i.e. plurality of strands) and are formed into sheets to be used in an electrochemical device (Ohsawa, Abstract, Paragraph [0155-0156]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a method of producing a member that comprises compressing a plurality of strands consisting of a shaping material composition to form a sheet as doing so is nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
In regard to Claim 38, Arya et al. in view Hu and Birke et al. and further in view of Ohsawa et al. discloses the method according to claim 22. Arya and Ohsawa both fail to explicitly disclose removing from a substrate the shaping material composition already bonded to the substrate.
Birke et al. discloses self-supporting layers can also be formed by applying the paste-like mass to a substrate and removing the layer produced after it has consolidated (i.e. removing from a substrate the shaping material composition already bonded to the substrate) (Birke, Paragraph [0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a self-supporting shaping material composition produced from the method taught in Birke as doing so would be nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arya et al. (Insights into the use of polyethylene oxide in energy storage/conversion devices: a critical review, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 50 443002, 2017), hereinafter “Arya” in view of Hu et al. (WO2018183771A1 – Machine Translation), hereinafter “Hu” as applied to claim 1 above in view of Birke et al. (US 20080113272 A1), “Birke” and further in view of Cheng et al. (US 20170098818 A1), hereinafter “Cheng”. Arya, Hu, Birke, and Cheng et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely polymer based members for electrochemical devices.
In regard to Claim 28, Arya et al. in view of Hu and further in view of Birke et al. discloses the method according to claim 24. Arya et al. and Birke et al. disclose conductive materials in the shaping material compositions but fail to explicitly disclose wherein the substrate has a conductive coating on a surface in contact with the shaping material composition.
Cheng et al. discloses a solvent free, free standing, flexible polymer solid electrolyte and electrode members where the conductive coating is applied to a current collector via a first electrode which is then in contact with the polymer solid electrolyte shaping material composition followed by another electrode which are then all laminated together in a LIB, thus the substrate has a conductive coating on a surface in contact with the shaping material composition. (Cheng, Abstract, Paragraphs [0036-0037, 0040], Claim 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a conductive coating on a surface of the substrate in contact with the shaping material composition as doing so would be nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on a new reference not previously presented, Hu et al. (WO2018183771A1 – Machine Translation). The new combination of Arya in view of Hu et al. discloses the optional limitation which was presented in original claim 31, which is now incorporated in to independent claim 1. Hu et al. discloses an alternate use for the PEO based member of Arya to include functioning as a hybrid electrode (See 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above).
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 KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725