DETAILED ACTION
Application 17/780536, “COMPOSITION-OF-MATTER FOR EXTRUSION OF ELECTROCHEMICAL SYSTEM”, is the national stage entry of a PCT application filed on 11/27/20 and claims priority from a provisional application filed on 11/27/19.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 12/5/25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/5/25 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant presents the following arguments.
Claim 1 requires a composition of matter in the form of a coaxial filament or in a form of a film with parallel sheets. Stolyarov is silent as to structure including one of these configurations, and Stolyarov’s use of the terms sheet and parallel does not related to the claimed film comprising parallel sheets.
In response, applicant’s specification does not provide a limiting definition of the terms “film” or “sheet”, but does state: “In some of any of the embodiments described herein, the composition-of-matter is in a form of a film, for example, wherein the first layer, second layer and third layer (according to any of the respective embodiments described herein) are in a form of sheets parallel to the film (that is, the plane of each sheet is substantially parallel to the plane the film)” (published paragraph [0085]). Moreover, Stolyarov states, “For the purposes of the present invention, the term “film” refers to a relatively thin continuous layer of material, and which may be supported on or by other materials, or which may be unsupported on or by other materials” (paragraph [0058]). Considering the teachings together, a structure comprised of multiple thin parallel layers, optionally including a support material, may be considered a film comprising parallel sheets.
Stolyarov further teaches:
as schematically illustrated at Figure 1, a structure comprised of at least a first layer [anode 112], a second layer [items 120 and/or 124], and a third layer [cathode 116];
that the functional components (e.g. separators, electrodes, electrolyte, etc.) of the inventive electrochemical devices may be provided in the form of “composite films” (paragraph [0093]);
the electrolyte as a “layer” (paragraph [0094]);
the separator as a “film” or “membrane” (paragraphs [0093 and 0032]);
the battery itself may be comprised of a plurality of layers (paragraph [0103]);
that “the ion-conducting layer of the battery” may be a printed layer (paragraphs [0110-0111]);
that the batteries comprised of a plurality of thin layers may be considered “thin film batteries” (paragraph [0079]).
In view of the interpretation that the “a film” of the claimed invention may be a multilayer film comprised of a plurality of layers, and Stolyarov’s teaching of a battery comprising plural thin layers, the battery of Stolyarov is properly interpreted as being readable on the claimed composition-of-matter which is “in the form of a film” with “parallel sheets” [individual layers of the structure understood to be “sheets” or “films” equivalently], as required.
Stolyarov teaches electrodes prepared separately from one another and therefore teaches a device/cell which contains an assembly of different components. Such a structure cannot be considered a “composition-of-matter”, as claimed.
In response, applicant’s specification does not include a limiting definition of “composition-of-matter” which implies that the composition-of-mattery cannot be an assembly of different components. Moreover, applicant’s specification, including claim 1, indicates that the composition-of-matter may be in the form of a multilayered structure. Therefore, the device of Stolyarov, even if formed of an assembly of different components as argued, is readable on the claimed “composition-of-matter. Furthermore, it is noted that Stolyarov does teach that both the electrolyte and the electrodes may each comprise a polymer matrix, which may include similar materials such as PEO (paragraphs [0114, 0117]). Therefore, even if “composition-of-matter” were interpreted to imply some commonality in materials, which it is not, this would still be suggested within the scope of Stolyarov.
Kwon discloses a multilayered structure assembled by sequentially wrapping or laminating [such as via extrusion] individually prepared components, rather than a single composition-of-matter in the form of a coaxial filament, as claimed.
In response, applicant’s specification does not include a limiting definition of “composition-of-matter” which implies that the composition-of-matter is a “single” composition that cannot be an assembly of different components. Moreover, applicant’s specification, including claim 1, indicates that the composition-of-matter may be in the form of a multilayered structure. Therefore, the device of Kwon, even if formed of an assembly of different components as argued, is readable on the claimed “composition-of-matter”. As to the term “filament”, applicant’s as-filed specification does not include a limiting definition of a “filament”, but does teach that an inventive filament can be produced by an extrusion process and may be used in the formation of a coaxial cable-type battery (applicant’s published paragraph [0313]). Similarly, Kwon teaches producing his coaxial product via an extrusion process to produce a coaxial cable-type battery (abstract, paragraphs [0002, 0050-0051]). Therefore, the coaxial cathode/separator/anode structure disclosed by Kwon is properly readable on the claimed composition-of-matter in the form of a filament with coaxial first, second and third layers.
In Kwon, the binders of the electrode layers, which may be thermoplastic by chemical classification, are used solely as slurry binders, not as thermoplastic structural matrices. Applicant further notes that Kwon does not use the term “thermoplastic”.
In response, this argument is not found persuasive at least because it is not commensurate in scope with claim 1, which does not require that the thermoplastic materials function as thermoplastic structural matrices. Moreover, applicant’s remarks on page 7 states “some of these binders may be thermoplastic by chemical classification”, thereby acknowledging that some the materials relied on by the Office to teach thermoplastic polymers are indeed thermoplastic materials. The prior art is not required to also express this fact (MPEP 2112 II).
Kwon does not teach that all three layers (anode 111, electrolyte 130 and cathode 121) each comprise a thermoplastic polymer, as claimed.
In response, Kwon teaches first layer 111 comprising a polymer binder comprising a thermoplastic material, for example polymethyl methacrylate or PVdF (paragraphs [0008, 0011, 0050]), second layer 130 comprising a thermoplastic polymer such as PEO or PVDF (paragraphs [0013, 0051]), and third layer 121 comprising a polymer binder comprising a thermoplastic material, for example polymethyl methacrylate or PVdF (paragraphs [0008, 0011, 0052]).
Deschamps fails to remedy the deficiencies of Stolyarov argued with respect to claim 1.
In response, Deschamps is not required to teach the features of claim 1. Applicant’s arguments against Stolyarov with respect to claim 1 have been previously considered and not found persuasive for reasons given above.
Applicant correctly noted that the title for the Kwon rejection of claim 16 was intended to as combination of Kwon and Deschamps, not a combination of Kwon and Stolyarov as incorrectly indicated. Applicant then argues that Deschamps fails to remedy the deficiencies of Kwon argued with respect to claim 1 and that Deschamps is silent as to the inclusion of a thermoplastic polymer in its components.
In response, Deschamps is not required to teach the features of claim 1 which are found to be taught or suggested by Kwon. Applicant’s arguments against Kwon with respect to claim 1 have been previously considered and not found persuasive for reasons given above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 9-11, 14-15, 34 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stolyarov (US 2017/0346129).
Regarding claim 1, Stolyarov teaches a composition-of-matter comprising: a first layer which comprises a first thermoplastic polymer and a substance capable of reversibly releasing lithium or a delithiated form of said substance, a second layer comprising a second thermoplastic polymer and being capable of conducting lithium ions, and a third layer which comprises a third thermoplastic polymer and a substance capable of reversibly releasing lithium or a delithiated form of said substance, wherein said first layer and said third layer are separated by said second layer (Figure 1 illustrates a battery comprising a first layer [anode 112], a third layer [cathode 116], and a second layer [items 120 and/or 124 which comprises a separator] which separates the first and second layer; paragraphs [0005-0011 and 0095-0096] teach that each of the electrode layers may comprise a polymer matrix of a thermoplastic polymer such as polylactic acid, while paragraph [0009, 0036, 0095] teaches the first and third layers comprising active materials capable of lithiation/delithiation, and paragraphs [0113, 0033, 0117-0118] teach that the separator may also comprise thermoplastic polymer such as polypropylene PEO or PMMA and a lithium ion conducting electrolyte).
Regarding the 12/5/25 amendment to claim 1, Stolyarov further teaches wherein: [i] the composition-of-matter is in the form of a filament, and said first laver, said second layer and said third layer are coaxial; or [ii] the composition-of-matter is in the form of a film, and said first layer, said second layer and said third layer are in a form of sheets parallel to the film (Stolyarov teaches the various layers in the forms of sheets parallel to a film at Fig. 1; paragraphs [0035, 0058, 0079, 0093], thereby teaching option [ii]).
Regarding claim 2, Stolyarov remains as applied to claim 1. Stolyarov further teaches a current collector layer (Fig. 1 items 104,108) in contact with the first or third layer.
Regarding claim 3, Stolyarov remains as applied to claim 1. Stolyarov further teaches wherein at least 20 weight percent of said first layer is said first thermoplastic polymer, at least 20 weight percent of said second layer is said second thermoplastic polymer, and/or at least 20 weight percent of said third layer is said third thermoplastic polymer (paragraph [0092]).
Regarding claim 9, Stolyarov remains as applied to claim 1. Stolyarov further teaches wherein the electrolyte may comprise a mixture of polylactic acid and polyethylene oxide (Stolyarov Claim 27).
Regarding claim 10, Stolyarov remains as applied to claim 1. Stolyarov further teaches wherein said second layer comprises a substance selected from the group consisting of silica and alumina (paragraph [0099]).
Regarding claim 11, Stolyarov remains as applied to claim 1. Stolyarov further teaches wherein said second layer comprises a lithium salt (0117-0118]).
Regarding claim 14-15, Stolyarov remains as applied to claim 1. Stolyarov further teaches wherein said first layer and/or said third layer further comprises an electrically conductive substance such as carbon particles (paragraphs [0008, 0103] e.g. “carbon black”).
Regarding claim 34 and 36, Stolyarov remains as applied to claim 1. Stolyarov further teaches a battery comprising at least one electrochemical system, comprising the composition of matter of claim 1, wherein said first layer and said third layer are each lithium based electrodes comprise different substances capable of reversibly releasing lithium or a delithiated form of said substances (paragraph [0095, 0109] describes a lithium-ion battery of the Stolyarov invention comprising lithium based electrodes of differing compositions).
Claims 1-3, 11, 14-15, 34 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwon (US 2012/0009331).
Regarding claim 1, Kwon teaches a composition-of-matter (e.g. Fig. 3) comprising: a first layer (item 111) which comprises a first thermoplastic polymer and a substance capable of reversibly releasing lithium or a delithiated form of said substance (paragraphs [0008-0011, 0050]), a second layer (item 130) comprising a second thermoplastic polymer and being capable of conducting lithium ions (paragraphs [0013-0014, 0051]), and a third layer (item 121) which comprises a third thermoplastic polymer and a substance capable of reversibly releasing lithium or a delithiated form of said substance (paragraphs [0008-0011, 0052]), wherein said first layer and said third layer are separated by said second layer (see Fig. 3).
Regarding the 12/5/25 amendment to claim 1, Kwon further teaches wherein: [i] the composition-of-matter is in the form of a filament, and said first laver, said second layer and said third layer are coaxial; or [ii] the composition-of-matter is in the form of a film, and said first layer, said second layer and said third layer are in a form of sheets parallel to the film (Stolyarov teaches the various layers in the forms of sheets parallel to a film (Kwon further teaches the composition of matter in the form of a filament, wherein said first layer, said second layer and said third layer are coaxial (see Fig. 3), thereby teaching option [i]).
Regarding claim 2, Kwon remains as applied to claim 1. Kwon further teaches a current collector layer (item 110 or 120) in contact with the first or third layer.
Regarding claim 3, Kwon remains as applied to claim 1. Kwon further teaches wherein at least 20 weight percent of said first layer is said first thermoplastic polymer, at least 20 weight percent of said second layer is said second thermoplastic polymer, and/or at least 20 weight percent of said third layer is said third thermoplastic polymer (paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 11, Kwon remains as applied to claim 1. Kwon further teaches wherein said second layer comprises a lithium salt (paragraphs [0013-0014, 0051]).
Regarding claim 14-15, Kwon remains as applied to claim 1. Kwon further teaches wherein said first layer and/or said third layer further comprises an electrically conductive substance such as carbon particles (paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 34 and 36, Kwon remains as applied to claim 1. Kwon further teaches a battery comprising at least one electrochemical system, comprising the composition of matter of claim 1, wherein said first layer and said third layer are each lithium based electrodes comprise different substances capable of reversibly releasing lithium or a delithiated form of said substances (paragraph [0010]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Stolyarov (US 2017/0346129) and Deschamps (US 2015/0311491).
Regarding claim 16, Stolyarov remains as applied to claim 1. Stolyarov does not expressly teach wherein said first layer and/or said third layer further comprises a lithium salt.
In the battery art, Deschamps teaches that it is preferable that an electrode be provided with a lithium salt as an ionic conduction agent (paragraphs [0058, 0061, 0069, 0074]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the electrode layers of Stolyarov [the first and third layer, as claimed] to include a lithium salt as an ionic conduction agent as taught by Deschamps in order to facilitate transport of ions into and through the electrodes.
Claims 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kwon (US 2012/0009331) and Deschamps (US 2015/0311491).
Regarding claim 16, Kwon remains as applied to claim 1. Kwon does not expressly teach wherein said first layer and/or said third layer further comprises a lithium salt.
In the battery art, Deschamps teaches that it is preferable that an electrode be provided with a lithium salt as an ionic conduction agent (paragraphs [0058, 0061, 0069, 0074]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the electrode layers of Kwon [the first and third layer, as claimed] to include a lithium salt as an ionic conduction agent as taught by Deschamps in order to facilitate transport of ions into and through the electrodes.
Relevant or Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, though not necessarily pertinent to applicant’s invention as claimed.
Itoh (US 2012/0315547) a lithium battery formed of polymer-comprising layers;
Lavoie (USP 770019) extrusion manufacturing techique for lithium polymer battery;
Nelson (USP 8318358) thin battery formed of polymer-comprising layers.
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 JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 PM (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached on (571)270-7078. 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.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723