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 5/13/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 4/16/26 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive and/or moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment. Applicant presents the following arguments.
Stolyarov fails to teach or suggest a battery that is operable without a liquid electrolyte. Applicant points to paragraph [0122] in support of the argument. In response, the Examiner agrees that Stolyarov paragraph [0122] implies a liquid electrolyte as 124 forms a gel-like structure upon the addition of electrolyte. However, the description of a gel electrolyte in paragraph [0122] is exemplary rather than limiting. The broader disclosure of Stolyarov (i.e. paragraph [0033]) discloses that the “electrolyte” of the invention is intended to refer to a substance which is sufficiently ionized due to “ionized salts dissolved in a liquid medium” or “ionized salts present in a gel or solid”, such as a solid which is a polymer-containing electrolyte. Stolyarov goes on to clarify that the term “solid” may refer to “non-liquid components” at paragraph [0073]. As described in MPEP 2123, “[d]isclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments”. Thus, a skilled artisan would have understood that even if the paragraph [0122] description is limited to liquid electrolyte, the broader disclosure supports substitution or replacement of liquid comprising electrolytes with solid electrolytes and Stolyarov does indeed suggest a battery that is operable without a liquid electrolyte.
Stolyarov paragraphs [0117-0118] describe systems that are entirely dependent on liquid solvents for ion conductivity. In response, paragraphs [0117-0118] appear to describe gel polymer electrolytes; however, as described previously (e.g. paragraph [0033]), Stolyarov teaches “solid” electrolytes as an alternative to solvent-including “gel” type electrolytes.
Claim 1 requires a single second layer, that is not readable on items 120 and/or 124 as alleged by the Examiner. In response, firstly claim 1 as worded is not limited such that the second layer cannot include plural layers or components as argued by applicant. Secondly, it appears that the Figure 1 description of items 120 and 124 as distinct components is merely schematic for illustration purposes. A skilled artisan would have understood that a matrix 124 would be embedded within another component, such as an electrolyte body, in systems such as that of Stolyarov. Thus, the components 120/124 are not necessarily representative of two separate layers. See the art rejections for more detail regarding the examiner’s interpretation with respect to items 120/124.
Kwon fails to teach a solid electrolyte layer capable of conducting lithium ions in the absence of a solid at least because Kwon at paragraph [0041] teaches that the solid electrolyte material may include a solid material that can be molten at high temperature, or that is in a liquid state by being dissolved in a solvent, and paragraph [0042] further teaches that "When a polymer electrolyte material requiring high temperature melting is used as the solid electrolyte material, it is preferred to heat the cylinder 2 of the extruder above the melting point However, when a solid electrolyte material in liquid state is used as the solid electrolyte material, drying may be further performed to remove the solvent". Additionally, paragraph [0043] teaches that the solid electrolyte material may include a gel polymer electrolyte, and that the gel polymer electrolyte having favorable ion movement is preferred over the solid electrolyte material. In response, paragraph [0013] expressly states that “the solid electrolyte material may include an electrolyte selected from the group consisting of a gel polymer electrolyte of PEO… and a solid polymer electrolyte of PEO”, clearly disclosing that gel electrolyte and solid electrolyte are considered alternatives under the scope of Kwon. Paragraph [0043] teaches that among gel and solid electrolyte embodiments, solid electrolyte material has relatively low ion conductivity, and gel electrolyte has poor mechanical properties. Thus, both embodiments are disclosed as useable, each with their own disadvantages. Paragraph [0051] expressly teaches an example comprising only polyethylene oxide and LiTFSI. The embodiment is formed at an elevated temperature, and inevitably cools to provide the solid electrolyte functioning as a second layer within the scope of the claimed invention. Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive because Kwon is found to fairly teach solid electrolytes which are capable of conducting lithium ions, at least to a degree to function properly in a lithium battery as suggested by paragraph [0051], and although a gel electrolyte is taught as advantageous in some ways, this teaching is insufficient to negate the positive teachings of solid electrolytes. MPEP 2123 clarifies that preferred embodiments do not negate the broad disclosure of non-preferred embodiments. However, in this case solid electrolyte appears to be an alternative preferred embodiment at least in view of paragraph [0051], notwithstanding any disclosed advantages specific to gel electrolytes.
MPEP 2131.05 states that a reference that expressly identifies a claimed feature as inferior cannot anticipate that feature. In response, applicant appears to misunderstand MPEP 2131.05, which actually teaches that disparaged embodiments can anticipate a claimed invention. Teaching away is inapplicable to anticipation analysis.
The PEO/LiTFSI system of paragraph [0051] is a well-known gel forming system, not a dry solid thermoplastic electrolyte. In response, this assessment appears to contradict the disclosure of paragraph [0051]. The electrolyte is processed at 50 °C, but this appears to be simply a temperature elevation in order to soften the PEO so that it can be extruded into the final form in which it its solidified. The extruder is maintained at the elevated temperature, atmospheric temperature is much lower. Applicant has not provided supporting evidence that PEO/LiTFSI is a “well-known gel forming system” which requires a liquid electrolyte, notwithstanding the omission of a liquid electrolyte from paragraph [0051]; therefore, the argument has not been found persuasive.
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, 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).
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 the 4/16/26 amendment to claim 1, Kwon further teaches wherein the second layer is a solid electrolyte and is capable of conducting said lithium ions in the absence of a liquid electrolyte (paragraphs [0013-0014, 0042-0043, 0051]; Paragraph [0051], particularly teaches a solid electrolyte without a liquid component).
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 9-11, 14-15, 34 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Stolyarov (US 2017/0346129) and Grubbs (US 2017/0018801).
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/electrolyte, see note below*] 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 paragraph [0033] teaches the electrolyte may contain a polymer).
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]).
*It is noted that the examiner interprets the Stolyarov description of items 120 and 124 at Fig. 1 as being a schematic description, with items 120 and 124 not necessarily existing in separate layers. As described in paragraph [0122], item 120 is a “body” and 124 is a “separator/electrolyte matrix component”. Paragraph [0046] clarifies that the polymers of the invention, including thermoplastic polymers such as polyethylene oxide and polymethyl methacrylate among others, serve as the polymer matrix and provide to the electrolyte. Thus, it appears that the matrix 124 may be embedded within an electrolyte, as the electrolyte contacts both electrodes (paragraph [0016]), i.e. Figure 1 may be intended to illustrate a matrix 124 which is embedded within an electrolyte body 120.
Claim 1 as amended on 4/16/26 further requires wherein said second layer is a solid electrolyte and is capable of conducting said lithium ions in the absence of a liquid electrolyte.
It is noted that the description of item 120/124 of Fig. 1 at paragraph [0122] teaches, “Component 124 swells to form a gel-like structure upon the addition of the electrolyte, thus serving as an ion-conducting medium and as a separator simultaneously”, implying inclusion of a liquid electrolyte, contrary to the claimed invention.
However, the broader description of Stolyarov further teaches that the electrolyte may be a material which is ionized due to “ionized salts present in a gel or solid” such “solid (e.g., polymer-containing) electrolytes” (paragraph [0033]), indicating that the disclosure of liquid comprising separator/matrix at Fig. 1 is not limiting of the separator/electrolyte.
Stolyarov does not appear to teach an express motivation for selection of a liquid-free design for the electrolyte.
In the battery art, Grubbs teaches that conventional electrolyte comprising liquid components are susceptible to safety issues arising from volatility and flammability in lithium batteries, and teaches the use of solid polymer electrolytes to mitigate the safety concerns (paragraph [0003]). Grubbs further teaches similar thermoplastic polymers to those of Stolyarov, such as polyethylene oxides for the solid electrolyte (paragraphs [0006, 0017]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the thermoplastic polymer electrolyte of Stolyarov to be a solid electrolyte composition capable of conducting lithium ions without liquid electrolyte, for the benefit of improving the safety of the battery as taught by Grubbs.
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. The cited art further teaches wherein the electrolyte may comprise a mixture of polylactic acid and polyethylene oxide (Stolyarov Claim 27; Grubbs at paragraph [0344]).
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 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Stolyarov (US 2017/0346129), Grubbs (US 2017/0018801) 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.
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
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
Prosecution Insights