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
In response to the amendments received 05/21/2025:
Claims 1-3 and 6-10 are pending in the current application. Claims 4-5 have been canceled. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 6-8 remain withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 10 recites “…the battery includes at least one high current or high voltage electrode”. The disclosure teaches high-current electrodes are electrodes that can provide a specific capacity of more than 100 mAhg-1 with a charging time of less than or equal to 15 hours. High-voltage electrodes can provide a final charge voltage of >4V. Therefore, a battery with a specific capacity of more than 100 mAhg-1 or a voltage of >4V will meet the recited limitations.
Examiner notes PEO is a form of PEG with a high molecular weight (PEG≤ 20,000 g/mol <PEO).
Claim Objection
Claim 9 recites “Alkali metal battery...” which should be changed to recite “An alkali metal battery…”.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wook et al. (KR 20170050561A) in view of Stevens et al. (US 20160049679) and Kwon et al. (US 2012/0094187).
Regarding claim 1, Wook teaches a solid electrolyte for an alkali/Li metal solid state battery (P32.38-39), wherein the solid electrolyte comprises at least one alkali metal conducting salt (P28-29) and a semi- interpenetrating network (sIPN) of a crosslinked and a non-crosslinked polymer (P16), wherein the semi-interpenetrating network comprises
a non- crosslinked polymer of polyethylene oxide (PEO), chain end modified derivative of this polymer (P16.19); and
polyethylene glycol dimethacrylate (PEGdMA) as crosslinked polymer in an amount of 5 to 50 wt% (P25-26), overlapping the claimed range of greater than or equal to 20% by weight and less than or equal to 50% by weight; wherein the solid electrolyte consists of greater than or equal to 90% by weight and less than or equal to 100% by weight of the alkali conducting salt and the sIPN (P46/1-46/4; example 1) and the solid electrolyte is solvent-free, where the solvent is completely removed (P41.46/4).
Wook is silent in explicitly teaching that the non-crosslinked polymer is greater than or equal to 50% by weight and less than or equal to 80% by weight of the sIPN, but teaches that the sIPN comprises the PEO, crosslinker, and lithium salt (P16), and the crosslinker is 5-50 wt% relative to the non-crosslinked polymer (P26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that the non-crosslinked polymer must be between 50 wt% to 95 wt% of the sIPN, in order to have the required amount of cross-linker. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05- I
The alkali metal conducting salt may be any from a list of lithium salts (P29). Although Wook is silent in explicitly teaching the lithium salt may be a mixture of at least two different lithium salts, it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” MPEP 2144.06
Wook teaches the desire for a high density polymer network (P20), but is silent in teaching the PEGdMA has an average molecular weight greater than or equal to 300 g/mol and less than or equal to 1000 g/mol; however, Stevens, related to electrolyte membranes with a SIPN network, also teaches using polyethylene glycol dimethacrylate (PEGdMA) as a cross-linker polymer, where crosslinking is initiated via radical thermal initiator (P52-54).
Stevens teaches the molecular weight of the crosslinker polymer is a result effective variable, wherein the more or less loose nature of this network depends on the molecular weight of the polymer. The higher said molecular weight, the less crosslinked the network obtained will be, and a preferable molecular weight of between 300 and 4000 (P50). When the molecular weight is decreased, for example 330 g/mol or 5500 g/mol, the density of the network and reduce the degree of swelling (P110).
Furthermore, Kwon, in a similar field of endeavor related to a solid electrolyte with a sIPN for a solid battery, also teaches forming a sIPN with non-crosslinked polymer and a cross-linked polymer. Kwon teaches an example of creating the sIPN where the crosslinking polymer is PEdGMA with a molecular weight of 400 g/mol and the noncrosslinking polymer is PEO where the formed sIPN improves mechanical properties and allows formation of a bulky amorphous structure (same as instant disclosure) improving ionic conductivity and preventing phase separation (P50.52.60.62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to find a molecular weight of the PEdGMA crosslinker of Woot in a range that increases density and decreases swelling and arrive within the range of 330 g/mol or 5500 g/mol, as taught by Stevens, or arrive at a value of 400 g/mol, as taught by Kwon to form a sIPN network with PEGdMA/PEO with improved ionic conductivity and mechanical properties.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
A prima facie case of obviousness may be established even though a prior art reference does not disclose any particular range, but teaches that the claimed parameters are known to affect results or properties. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claim 2, modified Wook teaches the non-crosslinked polymer is polyethylene oxide (P11.13.46) and the solid electrolyte has a molar ratio of ethylene oxide units to alkali ions, expressed by the quotient EO/Li, of 3 to 30 (P30), overlapping the claimed range of greater than or equal to 5 and less than or equal to 15. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05- I
Regarding claim 3, modified Wook teaches the solid electrolyte has a thickness of 5 µm to 50 µm (P31), overlapping the claimed range of greater than or equal to 20 µm and less than or equal to 60 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05- I
Regarding claim 9, modified Wook teaches an alkali metal battery comprising an anode, a cathode and a solid electrolyte arranged between anode and cathode, wherein the solid electrolyte is a solvent-free solid electrolyte according to claim 1 (P32-34.39-41).
Regarding claim 10, modified Wook teaches the battery is a Li metal battery and the battery includes at least one high current or high voltage electrode (P3.32-41.43.56; Fig. 2-showing a capacity always above 100 mAh/g).
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s arguments filed 05/21/2025:
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
264
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
294
629
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wook teaches the high molecular weight average with respect to the polyethylene oxide (PEO)-based polymer, not to the crosslinkable monomer, where the polyethylene oxide (PEO)-based polymer and crosslinkable member are different compounds. Wook teaches “The weight average molecular weight (Mw) of the polyethylene oxide-based polymer is preferably 1,000,000 to 8,000,000” (P20) and that the “crosslinkable monomer according to the present invention crosslinks the polyethylene oxide-based polymer”(P23), where the cross-linkable monomer is between the polyethylene oxide-based polymers (P27).
Polyethylene glycol dimethacrylate (PEGDMA) is taught as a crosslinkable member, NOT as the polyethylene oxide (PEO)-based polymer. This is also shown in the examples of Wook, where the polyethylene oxide (PEO)-based polymer is given a specific molecular weight within the taught range while no range is associated with the crosslinkable monomer. Wook does not teach away from, or suggest any molecular weight with respect to the crosslinkable monomer.
PNG
media_image3.png
373
641
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. Amended claim 1 recites a broad “mixture of at least two salts”.
The instant disclosure only recites an example of the combination of LiTFSI and LiFTFSI compared to only LiTFSI. However, no other combinations are shown (despite being recited). In the example, the combination of two salts does not show whether the same amount of salt is used, or if an additional amount of salt is used in the form of LiFTFSI. Are the results due to salts being used in combination at the same amount? An increase in salt quantity? Or does the added salt independently provide better results?
Additionally, Fig. 7 is not representative of argued results, and appears to show an instance of only LiFTFSI relative to one without any recited salts, which appears to have improved performance.
Examiner notes "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." (MPEP 7160.02(d)) Where the unexpected properties of a claimed invention are not shown to have a significance equal to or greater than the expected properties, the evidence of unexpected properties may not be sufficient to rebut the evidence of obviousness. Applicant is reminded that the burden is on applicant to show that difference in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. MPEP 716.02 (b)
Given that Wook teaches “The lithium salt can be any….” (P29), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine salts based on desired result.
A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination.” MPEP 2131.02 The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness. MPEP 2144
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sasaki et al. (US 5279910) teaches a polymer crosslinker electrolyte with various salts that may be used alone or together.
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 Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752