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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-15 and 22 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/17/2025.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that it would not be unduly burdensome to search for all the different species. This is not found persuasive because the species indicated in the restriction requirement comprise different chemical structures that would require separate searches.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-36 are pending. Claims 11-15 and 22 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4, 7, and 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In Claim 3, the use of the word “type” after each material (i.e. oxide type or sulfide type) renders the materials indefinite (See MPEP 2173.05(b) III E).
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the lithium salt" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this examination, Claim 7 is interpreted to be dependent off of Claim 2, which does comprise a lithium salt.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the solid electrolyte" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this examination, Claim 23 is interpreted to only comprise the limitation of a working electrolyte in ionic contact with an active material.
Claim 4 is dependent off of Claim 3.
Claim Interpretation
In Claim 1, the limitation of “a polymer that is obtained by in situ polymerizing and/or curing a reactive mass in the pores or a polymer solidified from a polymer solution” is considered a product-by-process limitation. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
For the purposes of this examination, it is interpreted that the structural limitations imparted by the product-by-process limitation is that the second polymer is solid and within the pores of the first polymer layer.
In Claim 20, the limitation of “initially the anode has no lithium or lithium alloy as an anode active material supported by said anode current collector when the battery is made and prior to a charge or discharge operation of the battery” is considered a product-by-process limitation. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
For the purposes of this examination, it is interpreted that the structural limitations imparted by the product-by-process limitations is that the anode comprises lithium metal or a lithium alloy.
Claim Objections
Claims 17, 18, and 31 objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2 of Claim 17, “comprises phosphonate vinyl monomer” should read “comprises a phosphonate vinyl monomer” or “comprises phosphonate vinyl monomers”.
In lines 7 and 8 of Claim 18, “a phosphonate groups” should read “phosphonate groups”.
In line 10 of Claim 31, “precipitate our the” should read “precipitate out the”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 9, 19, 23, 25-27, and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US 20130236766 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Seo teaches a separator comprising a porous polymer web made of a mixture of a heat-resistant polymer, a swellable polymer, and inorganic particles (Abstract). The heat-resistant polymer can be viewed as the first polymer and the swellable polymer can be viewed as the second polymer. Electrospinning is used to form a porous polymer web comprising fibers of the two polymers (Example 1: 0199-0200) and the second polymer (equivalent to the swellable polymer fibers in Example 1) can be viewed as residing in pores formed by the first polymer (equivalent to the heat-resistant polymer fibers in Example 1). The porous polymer web layer is between 5 µm and 50 µm (0048), which falls within the claimed range of 50 nm to 200 nm.
Although Seo uses polyacrylonitrile (PAN) as the heat-resistant polymer in the examples, Seo teaches that polymers such as polyamide, polyimide, and polyamide-imide can be used as the heat-resistant polymer (0145) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used polyamide, polyimide, or polyamide-imide as the heat-resistant/first polymer as Seo teaches them as part of a list of suitable polymers and choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2143 E).
Modified Seo does not disclose the lithium-ion conductivity of the first or second polymer.
However, the heat-resistant/first polymer of modified Seo comprises the same first polymers as the claimed invention (polyamide, polyimide, or polyamide-imide) and the swellable/second polymer of modified Seo comprises the same polymers as the second polymers of the claimed invention (polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyethylene oxide (PEO), or polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) (0199-0200)). Therefore, at least one of the first or second polymers of modified Seo would therefore have the same lithium-ion conductivity as the first or second polymers of the claimed invention: 10-8 S/cm to 2*10-2 S/cm.
Regarding Claim 2, as best understood in view of the 112(b) issues presented above, modified Seo teaches the separator of Claim 1. Seo teaches that the inorganic particles in the porous polymer web is preferably 10 to 25 wt% (0047) and that the inorganic particle can be a lithium salt in the form of LiOH (0049). Thus, first and second polymers can be viewed as comprising 10% to 25% by weight of a lithium salt.
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, modified Seo teaches the separator of Claim 1. The swellable/second polymer can be polymers such as polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyethylene oxide (PEO), polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), and thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) (0199-0200). PMMA can be produced by polymerizing or curing a liquid solvent of methyl methacrylate.
Regarding Claim 7, as best understood in view of the 112(b) issues presented above, modified Seo teaches the separator of Claim 2. The lithium salt is LiOH (0049).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Seo teaches the separator of Claim 1. An electrolyte is present within the separator (0169).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Seo teaches the separator of Claim 1 and that it can be used in a lithium battery (Abstract). The lithium battery comprises a cathode, an anode, the separator of Claim 1 separating/disposed between the cathode and the anode (Abstract), and a protective housing or package (0172).
Regarding Claim 23, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues presented above, modified Seo teaches the battery of Claim 19. The battery comprises a working electrolyte that would be in ionic contact with the anode and cathode active materials (0089). The electrolyte is an organic liquid electrolyte (0170).
Regarding Claim 25, modified Seo teaches the battery of Claim 19. The cathode comprises a cathode active material selected from an inorganic material (0130).
Regarding Claim 26, modified Seo teaches the battery of Claim 25. The cathode active material is selected from a metal oxide (0130).
Regarding Claim 27, modified Seo teaches the battery of Claim 26. The cathode active material is selected from a lithium cobalt oxide, lithium nickel oxide, lithium manganese oxide, or lithium-mixed metal oxide (0130).
Regarding Claim 29, modified Seo teaches the battery of Claim 26. The active material can be selected from lithium manganate, lithium manganese oxide, lithium cobalt oxide, and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxides (0130).
Regarding Claim 30, modified Seo teaches the battery of Claim 26. The metal oxide is selected from a layered compound (LiCoO2 and LiMnO2) or a spinel compound (LiMn2O4) (0130).
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chiba (US 20110293976 A1).
Regarding Claims 2 and 4, modified Seo teaches the separator of Claim 1. Modified Seo teaches that the inorganic particles can be alumina and silica (0049) (Claim 4) and that they can be present in an amount of 10 to 25 wt% (0047) but does not disclose what the equivalent volume % would be.
Chiba teaches a separator layer comprising a porous polymer and inorganic particles (0059) such as PVDF and alumina (0109). The inorganic particles can be present in an amount between 60 vol% and 95 vol% in order to prevent decreased pressure resistance and decreased maintaining force (0070).
Chiba is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely separators for batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inorganic particle amount of modified Seo to be between 60 vol% and 95 vol% as taught by Chiba in order to prevent decreased pressure resistance and decreased maintaining force.
Examiner notes that Seo teaches disadvantages when the content of the inorganic particles exceeds 25 wt% (0023, 0141). Applicant is invited to show that the range of 60-95 vol% taught by Chiba would exceed 25 wt%.
Claim(s) 2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Song (US 20180043656 A1).
Regarding Claims 2 and 8, modified Seo teaches the separator of Claim 1. Modified Seo does not teach that the separator comprises a flame-retardant additive.
Song teaches a porous film comprising at least one layer comprising a matrix/porous polymer for use as a battery separator (Abstract). The layer(s) can comprise 0 to 20 wt% of an additive such as a flame retardant (0021). This allows for the reduction of heat release and the suppression of smoke (0163). The disclosed range overlaps the claimed range of 1 wt% to 50 wt%.
Song is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely separators for batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the porous separator of modified Seo to comprise 0 to 20 wt% of a flame-retardant additive as taught by Song in order to reduce heat release and suppress smoke.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed weight ranges as selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Song teaches that suitable flame retardants include metal oxides, phosphorus-based compounds, halogenated compounds, and melamine compounds (0165).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a metal oxide, phosphorus-based compound, halogenated compound, or a melamine compound as the flame retardant of modified Seo as Song teaches the compounds as suitable flame retardants and choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2143 E).
Claim(s) 9-10 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou (US 20230238577 A1).
Regarding Claims 9-10 and 16-18, modified Seo teaches the separator of Claim 1. Modified Seo does not teach that the second polymer comprises a dialkyl allylphosphonate solvent that permeates into the second polymer.
Zhou teaches an electrolyte comprising diethyl allylphosphonate and 1-phenyl-1-cyclohexene as additives (0023). The electrolyte provides a delay in the onset of thermal runaway.
Zhou is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely lithium batteries (0017).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte of modified Seo to be the electrolyte taught by Zhou as it allows for the delay of the onset of thermal runaway.
Although the diethyl allylphosphonate is used as an electrolyte additive, is has the same structure as the phosphonates disclosed on page 44 of the instant specification and can therefore be viewed as a second liquid solvent that permeates into the second polymer (instant specification: page 44, line 11; Seo: 0033 – the electrolyte, which contains the diethyl allylphosphonate is impregnated into the polymer web containing the swellable/second polymer) (Claim 9). Diethyl allylphosphonate would be a phosphonate (Claims 10 and 16), a phosphonate bearing allyl monomers (Claim 17), and a dialkyl allylphosphonate monomer (Claim 18).
Claim(s) 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Pan (US 20180301707 A1).
Regarding Claims 20 and 21, modified Seo teaches the battery of Claim 19. Modified Seo teaches that the negative electrode active material is not limited but does not teach that the negative electrode active material is lithium metal.
Pan teaches a lithium metal secondary battery comprising a lithium metal anode (0001). Using lithium metal as an anode active material provides higher capacity (0002).
Pan is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely lithium batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anode active material of modified Seo to be lithium metal in order to provide higher capacity.
This would result in an anode comprising a current collector (Seo: 0056) and an amount of lithium as an anode active material supported by said current collector (Claim 21).
Pan further teaches that the anode can initially contain no lithium metal when the battery is made (0065). This provides a safer manufacturing environment (0065).
Therefore, the lithium metal anode of modified Seo can also initially contain no lithium metal when the battery is made and would read on Claim 20.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Abe (US 8663832 B2).
Regarding Claim 24, modified Seo teaches the battery of Claim 19. Modified Seo does not disclose the composition of the cathode.
Abe teaches a lithium-ion battery (Col. 3, lines 22-27) comprising a cathode/positive electrode (Abstract). The positive electrolyte active material layer can comprise a polymer binder in the form of PVDF (which is one of the swellable/second polymers disclosed by Seo) and an electrolyte/lithium salt (Col. 6, lines 10-26).
Abe is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely lithium batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cathode of modified Seo to include a PVDF binder and an electrolyte/lithium salt as Abe teaches them as suitable additives for a positive electrode/cathode. Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of a cathode with suitable components (See MPEP 2143 A).
This would result in the cathode having a binder having the same composition (PVDF) as the swellable/second polymer and a lithium salt dispersed within the binder.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Demaray (US 20180006293 A1).
Regarding Claim 28, modified Seo teaches the battery of Claim 26. Modified Seo does not teach that the cathode active material is a lithium transition metal silicate.
Demaray teaches that a battery can comprise lithium metal silicates with the formula Li2MSiO4, where M is a divalent cation such as Fe2+, Mn2+, or Co2+, as a cathode material (0100). This would read on the claimed formula of Li2MSiO4, where M is selected from Fe, Mn, Co, Ni, V, or VO.
Demaray is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely lithium batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the cathode active material of modified Seo with the lithium metal silicate taught by Demaray as it is a known active material for a cathode in a lithium battery. Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of a battery with a suitable cathode active material (See MPEP 2143 B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31-36 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claims 31-36, the prior art does not teach a process of manufacturing the separator of Claim 1 comprising providing a porous layer of the first polymer comprising connected pores or though holes, impregnating the pores or holes with a reactive mass or a polymer solution wherein the reactive mass comprises a monomer and an initiator or an oligomer and a curing agent, or wherein the polymer solution comprises the second polymer dissolved in a liquid solvent, and forming the second polymer by in situ polymerization and/or curing the reactive mass, or by removing the solvent from the polymer solution to solidify or precipitate the second polymer inside he pores of the first polymer layer.
Seo (US 20130236766 A1) teaches a separator comprising a porous layer of a first polymer and a second polymer within the porous layer (0199-0200; see 103 rejections above). However, the two polymers are processed at the same time to form the porous layer (0199-0200).
Asai (US 20210066691 A1) teaches a method of forming a separator comprising providing a porous separator substrate (first polymer) and polymerizing two compounds (second polymer) within the pores of the porous separator substrate (0062). However, the porous separator substrate is a polyolefinic resin (0085), which would not read on any of the polymers listed in Claim 1.
Lee (US 20110259505 A1) teaches a method of manufacturing a separator comprising the steps of preparing a porous substrate having pores and coating a slurry comprising a binder polymer on the porous substrate (0010). The slurry is dried to form a porous polymer coating layer on the porous substrate (0010). However, the first and second polymers are located in different layers (porous substrate vs. coating layers) and the second polymer cannot be viewed as permeating into or residing within the pores of the first polymer.
Claims 3 is rejected due to the use of the word “type” (see 112(b) rejection above) and is dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if amended to overcome the 112(b) rejection and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art does not teach the separator of Claim 2, wherein the inorganic material particles in the first or second polymer comprise an inorganic solid electrolyte material.
Bucur (US 20210344079 A1) teaches a polymer separator (Title) comprising inorganic particles (0012). The inorganic particles can comprise solid electrolyte materials such as LATP, LLZO, and LGPS and can increase the strength of the polymer (0012). The separator of Bucer can be porous (0033, 0044). However, the separator of Bucur is used in a solid-state battery without a liquid electrolyte (Abstract).
Modified Seo uses a liquid electrolyte (0170) and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to modify the separator of modified Seo with the teachings of Bucur.
Liu (US 20240186653 A1) teaches a porous separator for a liquid electrolyte battery (0002, 0007). The separator comprises a polymer (0010) and ceramic particles, which include alumina, silica, or LLZO, which is a solid electrolyte particle (0011).
However, Liu was filed after the effective filing date of the present application.
Durstock (US 20190334168 A1) teaches a composite electrolyte comprising a binder polymer in an amount of 20 wt% to 50 wt% and a ceramic filler in an amount of 50 wt% to 80 wt% (Claim 1). The ceramic filler can be a solid electrolyte material (0137 – LATP, LAGP, and LLTO).
However, the ceramic filler is present in the separator in a much larger amount than the inorganic particles of modified Seo. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to substitute the ceramic particles of modified Seo (alumina and/or silica) with the ceramic solid electrolyte particles of Durstock.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIHENG LU whose telephone number is (703)756-1077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5 ET.
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 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.
/ZIHENG LU/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Maria Laios/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727