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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending;
Claims 1, 3, 10-12, and 19-20 are amended.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending Since the Office Action of 07/14/2025
The drawing objections is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendment;
The 112(b) rejections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment;
The 103 rejections of claims 1-20 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and argument and replaced with a new 103 rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 10/14/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12-14, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yamazaki in view of Hibara.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-9, 13-14, and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “bis(oxalate)boarate (BOB), tetracyanoboarate (bison)” in line 9 should be corrected to “bis(oxalate)bo
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “bis(oxalate)boarate (BOB), tetrafluoroborate, tetracyanoboarate (bison), difluoro(oxalate)boarate (DFOB)” in lines 4-5 should be corrected to “bis(oxalate)bo
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “bis(oxalate)boarate (BOB), tetracyanoboarate” in line 9 should be corrected to “bis(oxalate)bo
Regrading claim 13, the limitation “bis(oxalate)boarate (BOB), tetrafluoroborate, tetracyanoboarate (bison), difluoro(oxalato)boarate (DFOB)” in lines 13-14 should be corrected to “bis(oxalate)borate (DFOB)”. Claim 14 is also objected to based on its dependency on claim 13;
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “bis(oxalate)boarate (BOB), tetracyanoboarate (bison)” in lines 13-14 should be corrected to “bis(oxalate)bo
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “bis(oxalate)boarate (BOB), tetrafluoroborate, tetracyanoboarate (bison), difluoro(oxalato)boarate (DFOB)” in lines 18-19 should be corrected to “bis(oxalate)bo.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 3, 12, and 20 includes the limitation “the gel polymer electrolyte comprises a second sulfolene additive represented by one of the following structures:
PNG
media_image1.png
253
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where R1, R2, and R3 are independently selected from hydrogen, linear or branched alkyl groups, linear or branched alkene groups, linear or branched alkoxyl groups. linear or branched ether groups, phenyl groups, mono-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, di-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, tri-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, nitro groups, cyanogen groups, halogen groups, or a combination thereof and R4 is selected from the hydrogen, halogen groups, or a combination thereof.” This limitation is not supported in the original disclosure as filed. The original instant specification as filed only gives one explicit example which includes only one sulfolene additive, 3-sulfolene ([0094]-[0097). Further, the instant specification does not suggest the use of more than one sulfolene additive in a gel polymer electrolyte, instead stating that “the sulfolene additive includes 3-sulfolene. In other variations, the sulfolene additive may be represented by one of the following structures” ([0071]). The instant specification alternatively states “In one aspect, sulfolene additive may include 3-sulfolene (3-SF) or may be represented by one of the following structures ([0009]; [0018]; [0026]). This means that there is one sulfolene additive, either 3-sulfolene or, alternatively, one sulfolene additive represented by the presented structure. Further, the disclosure includes an “another additive”, but this is in direct reference to vinyl ethylene carbonate (VEC), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), vinylene carbonate, and/or derivatives of ethylene carbonate ([0072]), not in reference to a second sulfolene additive. As such, the disclosure as originally filed gives no reasonable indication of a second sulfolene additive, and the amended claims 3, 12, and 20 constitute new matter.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (US-20220311050-A1), hereinafter Yamazaki, in view of Hibara et al. (JP-2000294278-A), hereinafter Hibara.
Regarding claim 1, Yamazaki teaches a gel polymer electrolyte for an electrochemical cell ([0473]) that cycles lithium ions ([0002]), the gel polymer electrolyte comprising: a polymer host ([0473] – [0474]); a liquid electrolyte; and greater than or equal to about 0.1 wt.% to less than or equal to about 10 wt.% of a sulfolene additive ([0427]; [0434] aids can be used including sulfur-containing compounds such as sulfolene; aids are in the amount of 0.01% to 5% by mass based on 100% by mass of the electrolyte solution). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Yamazaki fails to teach that the sulfolene additive is represented by one of the following structures:
PNG
media_image2.png
248
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where R1, R2, and R3 are independently selected from hydrogen, linear or branched alkyl groups, linear or branched alkene groups, linear or branched alkoxyl groups, linear or branched ether groups, phenyl groups, mono-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, di-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, tri-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, nitro groups, cyanogen groups, halogen groups, or a combination thereof and R4 is selected from linear or branched alkyl groups, linear or branched alkene groups, linear or branched alkoxyl groups, linear or branched ether groups, phenyl groups, mono-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, di-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, tri-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, nitro groups, cyanogen groups, or a combination thereof.
Hibara is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sulfolene additives for battery electrolytes ([0001]). Hibara teaches a sulfolene additive represented by one of the following structures:
PNG
media_image2.png
248
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where R1, R2, and R3 are independently selected from hydrogen, linear or branched alkyl groups, linear or branched alkene groups, linear or branched alkoxyl groups, linear or branched ether groups, phenyl groups, mono-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, di-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, tri-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, nitro groups, cyanogen groups, halogen groups, or a combination thereof and R4 is selected from linear or branched alkyl groups, linear or branched alkene groups, linear or branched alkoxyl groups, linear or branched ether groups, phenyl groups, mono-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, di-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, tri-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, nitro groups, cyanogen groups, or a combination thereof (see formula 1 in the original non-translated version; [0008]; [0010]-[0013]; R1 to R10 may be the same or different and each represent a hydrogen atom or an alkyl group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamazaki to further specify the type of sulfolene additive such as in Hibara. Doing so helps suppress the reductive decomposition reaction during charging and improves charge-discharge efficiency (Hibara 0014]) and improve cycle characteristics of the battery (Hibara [0022]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Yamazaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Yamazaki also teaches that the gel polymer electrolyte further comprises: greater than or equal to about 0.1 wt.% to less than or equal to about 5 wt.% of an ethylene carbonate additive selected from the group consisting of vinyl ethylene carbonate (VEC), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), vinylene carbonate, and combinations thereof ([0344]-[0353]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Yamazaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Yamazaki also teaches wherein the sulfolene additive is a first sulfolene additive ([0427; [0434] aids can be used including sulfur-containing compounds such as sulfolene) and the gel polymer electrolyte further comprises a second sulfolene additive ([0487] the electrolyte includes a sulfone-based compound in addition to known aids) represented by one of the following structures:
PNG
media_image1.png
253
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where R1, R2, and R3 are independently selected from hydrogen, linear or branched alkyl groups, linear or branched alkene groups, linear or branched alkoxyl groups. linear or branched ether groups, phenyl groups, mono-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, di-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, tri-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, nitro groups, cyanogen groups, halogen groups, or a combination thereof and R4 is selected from the hydrogen, halogen groups, or a combination thereof ([0491] 3-sulfolene as the sulfone-based compound).
Regarding claim 5, modified Yamazaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Yamazaki also teaches that the liquid electrolyte has a lithium salt concentration greater than or equal to about 1.2 M ([0267]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Yamazaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 6. Yamazaki also teaches that the liquid electrolyte comprises: a first lithium salt comprising a lithium cation (Li+) and an anion selected from the group consisting of bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (TFSI), trifluoromethanesulfonate (triflate), bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (FSI-), cyclo- difluoromethane-1,1-bis(sulfonyl)imide (DMSI), bis(perfloroethanesulfonyl)imide (BETI), cyclo-hexafluoropropane-1,1-bis(sulfonyl)imide (HPSI), and combinations thereof ([0260]; [0266] CF3SO3Li, LiC(FSO2)2);
and a second lithium salt comprising a lithium cation (Li+) and an anion selected from the group consisting of: tetrafluoroborate, bis(oxalate)boarate (BOB), tetracyanoboarate (bison), difluoro(oxalato)borate (DFOB), bis(fluoromalonato)borate (BFMB), and combinations thereof ([0256] inorganic lithium salts such as LiBF4; [0264] the electrolyte salts may be used singly or in combinations of two or more thereof; [0266] an inorganic lithium salt and an organic lithium salt are used in combination).
Regarding claim 7, modified Yamazaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 6. Yamazaki also teaches that a concentration of the first lithium salt is greater than or equal to about 0.6 M to less than or equal to about 2.0 M, and a concentration of the second lithium salt is greater than or equal to about 0.6 M to less than or equal to about 2.0 M ([0267] the total electrolyte salt concentration ranges from 0.3 mol/L to 3.0 mol/L; given a mix or an organic and inorganic salt, the molarity of each salt must fall within the given range of 0.3 mol/L and 3.0 mol/L such that the total molarity of the salts is 0.3-3.0 mol/L). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Regarding claim 8, modified Yamazaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 6. Yamazaki also teaches that the liquid electrolyte further comprises: a third lithium salt distinct from the second lithium salt and comprising a lithium cation (Li) and an anion selected from the group consisting of: bis(oxalate)boarate (BOB), tetrafluoroborate, tetracyanoboarate (bison), difluoro(oxalato)boarate (DFOB), bis(floromalonato)borate (BFMB), and combinations thereof ([0227]; [0247]; [0251]-[0252] the compound (5) is preferably lithium bis(oxalate)borate).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yamazaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 8. Yamazaki does not specifically specify that a concentration of the third lithium salt is greater than or equal to about 0.05 M to less than or equal to about 1.0 M. However, the molarity of the third lithium salt is optimizable. Yamazaki does specify that the compound (5) is preferably in the range of 0.001% to 10% by mass ([0253]). Given such a range, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the third lithium salt within the given mass percentage range such that a concentration of the third lithium salt is greater than or equal to about 0.05 M to less than or equal to about 1.0 M to provide excellent cycle characteristics ([0253]). [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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 10, Yamazaki teaches a semi-solid state electrochemical cell comprising: a first electrode comprising a positive electroactive material ([0087]); a second electrode comprising a negative electroactive material ([0087]; [0505]-[0507]; [0513]); and a separating layer physically separating the first electrode and the negative electrode ([0087]; [0513]), the separating layer comprising a gel polymer electrolyte ([0473]) that comprises: a polymer host ([0473] – [0474]); a liquid electrolyte; greater than or equal to about 0.1 wt.% to less than or equal to about 10 wt.% of a sulfolene additive ([0427; [0434] aids can be used including sulfur-containing compounds such as sulfolene; aids are in the amount of 0.01% to 5% by mass based on 100% by mass of the electrolyte solution); and greater than or equal to about 0.1 wt.% to less than or equal to about 5 wt.% of an ethylene carbonate additive selected from the group consisting of vinyl ethylene carbonate (VEC), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), vinylene carbonate, and combinations thereof ([0344]-[0353]).). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Yamazaki fails to teach that the sulfolene additive is represented by one of the following structures:
PNG
media_image2.png
248
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where R1, R2, and R3 are independently selected from hydrogen, linear or branched alkyl groups, linear or branched alkene groups, linear or branched alkoxyl groups, linear or branched ether groups, phenyl groups, mono-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, di-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, tri-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, nitro groups, cyanogen groups, halogen groups, or a combination thereof and R4 is selected from linear or branched alkyl groups, linear or branched alkene groups, linear or branched alkoxyl groups, linear or branched ether groups, phenyl groups, mono-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, di-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, tri-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, nitro groups, cyanogen groups, or a combination thereof.
Hibara is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sulfolene additives for battery electrolytes ([0001]). Hibara teaches a sulfolene additive represented by one of the following structures:
PNG
media_image2.png
248
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where R1, R2, and R3 are independently selected from hydrogen, linear or branched alkyl groups, linear or branched alkene groups, linear or branched alkoxyl groups, linear or branched ether groups, phenyl groups, mono-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, di-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, tri-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, nitro groups, cyanogen groups, halogen groups, or a combination thereof and R4 is selected from linear or branched alkyl groups, linear or branched alkene groups, linear or branched alkoxyl groups, linear or branched ether groups, phenyl groups, mono-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, di-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, tri-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, nitro groups, cyanogen groups, or a combination thereof (see formula 1 in the original non-translated version; [0008]; [0010]-[0013]; R1 to R10 may be the same or different and each represent a hydrogen atom or an alkyl group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamazaki to further specify the type of sulfolene additive such as in Hibara. Doing so helps suppress the reductive decomposition reaction during charging and improves charge-discharge efficiency (Hibara 0014]) and improve cycle characteristics of the battery (Hibara [0022]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Yamazaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 10. Yamazaki also teaches wherein the sulfolene additive is a first sulfolene additive ([0427; [0434] aids can be used including sulfur-containing compounds such as sulfolene) and the gel polymer electrolyte further comprises a second sulfolene additive ([0487] the electrolyte includes a sulfone-based compound in addition to known aids) represented by one of the following structures:
PNG
media_image1.png
253
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where R1, R2, and R3 are independently selected from hydrogen, linear or branched alkyl groups, linear or branched alkene groups, linear or branched alkoxyl groups. linear or branched ether groups, phenyl groups, mono-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, di-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, tri-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, nitro groups, cyanogen groups, halogen groups, or a combination thereof and R4 is selected from the hydrogen, halogen groups, or a combination thereof ([0491] 3-sulfolene as the sulfone-based compound).
Regarding claim 13, modified Yamazaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 10. Yamazaki also teaches that the liquid electrolyte comprises: a first lithium salt comprising a lithium cation (Li+) and an anion selected from the group consisting of bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (TFSI), trifluoromethanesulfonate (triflate), bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (FSI-), cyclo- difluoromethane-1,1-bis(sulfonyl)imide (DMSI), bis(perfloroethanesulfonyl)imide (BETI), cyclo-hexafluoropropane-1,1-bis(sulfonyl)imide (HPSI), and combinations thereof ([0260]; [0266] CF3SO3Li, LiC(FSO2)2 as an organic salt; [0266] an inorganic lithium salt and organic lithium salt may be used in combination);
a second lithium salt comprising a lithium cation (Li+) and an anion selected from the group consisting of: tetrafluoroborate, bis(oxalate)boarate (BOB), tetracyanoboarate (bison), difluoro(oxalato)borate (DFOB), bis(fluoromalonato)borate (BFMB), and combinations thereof ([0256] inorganic lithium salts such as LiBF4; [0264] the electrolyte salts may be used singly or in combinations of two or more thereof; [0266] an inorganic lithium salt and an organic lithium salt are used in combination);
and a third lithium salt that is distinct from the second lithium salt and comprises a lithium cation (Li+) and an anion selected from the group consisting of bis(oxalate)boarate (BOB), tetrafluoroborate, tetracyanoboarate (bison), difluoro(oxalato)boarate (DFOB), bis(floromalonato)borate (BFMB), and combinations thereof ([0227]; [0247]; [0251]-[0252] the compound (5) is preferably lithium bis(oxalate)borate).
Regarding claim 14, modified Yamazaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 13. Yamazaki also teaches that a concentration of the first lithium salt is greater than or equal to about 0.6 M to less than or equal to about 2.0 M, a concentration of the second lithium salt is greater than or equal to about 0.6 M to less than or equal to about 2.0 M ([0267] the total electrolyte salt concentration ranges from 0.3 mol/L to 3.0 mol/L; given a mix or an organic and inorganic salt, the molarity of each salt must fall within the given range of 0.3 mol/L and 3.0 mol/L such that the total molarity of the salts is 0.3-3.0 mol/L). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Yamazaki fails to specify that a concentration of the third lithium salt is greater than or equal to about 0.05 M to less than or equal to about 1.0 M. However, the molarity of the third lithium salt is optimizable. Yamazaki does specify that the compound (5) is preferably in the range of 0.001% to 10% by mass ([0253]). Given such a range, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the third lithium salt within the given mass percentage range such that a concentration of the third lithium salt is greater than or equal to about 0.05 M to less than or equal to about 1.0 M to provide excellent cycle characteristics ([0253]). [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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 18, modified Yamazaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 10. Yamazaki also teaches that the separating layer further comprises a microporous polymeric separator ([0575] porous sheet or nonwoven fabric including a polyolefin; [0580] microporous film; [0596] polypropylene-based microporous film) having a porosity greater than or equal to about 5 vol.% to less than or equal to about 100 vol.% ([0577]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki in view of Hibara, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Schaefer et al. (US-20140154533-A1), hereinafter Schaefer.
Regarding claim 11, modified Yamazaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 10. Yamazaki fails to teach a solid-state electrolyte interphase (SEI) layer having an average thickness greater than or equal to about 10 nanometers to less than or equal to about 50 nanometers at an interface between the second electrode and the separating layer, the solid-state electrolyte interphase (SEI) layer covering greater than or equal to about 95 % of a surface of the second electrode.
Schaefer is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries ([0002]). Schaefer teaches a solid-state electrolyte interphase (SEI) layer having an average thickness greater than or equal to about 10 nanometers to less than or equal to about 50 nanometers ([0108]) at an interface between the second electrode and the separating layer ([0205] surface of the negative electrode), the solid-state electrolyte interphase (SEI) layer covering greater than or equal to about 95 % of a surface of the second electrode ([0107] up to 100% of the surface).
Yamazaki and Schaefer are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Yamazaki to include the SEI layer such as in Schaefer. Doing so allows for preventing the growth of lithium dendrites and prevents undesired reactions between the electrochemically active material and the electrolyte (Schaefer [0111]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki in view of Hibara, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Yadav et al. (US-20230031554-A1), hereinafter Yadav.
Regarding claim 15, modified Yamazaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 10. Yamazaki fails to teach that the gel polymer electrolyte is a first gel polymer electrolyte, the first electrode further comprises a second gel polymer electrolyte, and the second electrode further comprises a third gel polymer electrolyte.
Yadav is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of polymer gel electrolytes. Yadav teaches that the gel polymer electrolyte is a first gel polymer electrolyte, the first electrode further comprises a second gel polymer electrolyte, and the second electrode further comprises a third gel polymer electrolyte ([0024]-[0025]; fig. 3A; [0056]).
Yamazaki and Yadav are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of polymer gel electrolytes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Yamazaki to include a second gel polymer electrolyte and a third gel polymer electrolyte such as in Yadav. Doing so allows the improved or optimum performance out of the cathode and anode (Yadav [0024]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki in view of Hibara and Yadav, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Tiruvannamalai et al. (US-20230369640-A1), hereinafter Tiruvannamalai.
Regarding claim 16, modified Yamazaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 15. Yamazaki fails to teach that the first electrode further comprises a first plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles, and the second electrode further comprises a second plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles.
Tiruvannamalai is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gel polymer electrolytes. Tiruvannamalai teaches the further addition of solid state electrolyte particles to gel polymer electrolytes.
Yamazaki and Tiruvannamalai are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gel polymer electrolytes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Yamazaki to include solid state electrolyte particles in the first and second electrodes. Doing so allows for improved conduction of ions of the active metal during operation of the electrochemical cell (Tiruvannamalai [0008]).
Claims 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki in view of Hibara, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Tiruvannamalai et al. (US-20230369640-A1), hereinafter Tiruvannamalai.
Regarding claim 17, modified Yamazaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 10. Yamazaki fails to teach that the separating layer further comprises a plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles.
Tiruvannamalai is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gel polymer electrolytes. Tiruvannamalai teaches the further addition of solid state electrolyte particles to gel polymer electrolytes.
Yamazaki and Tiruvannamalai are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gel polymer electrolytes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Yamazaki to include solid state electrolyte particles in the first and second electrodes. Doing so allows for improved conduction of ions of the active metal during operation of the electrochemical cell (Tiruvannamalai [0008]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki in view of Hibara, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyasoto et al. (US-20160108070-A1), hereinafter Miyasoto.
Regarding claim 4, modified Yamazaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Yamazaki also teaches that the polymer host is selected from the group consisting of: poly(acrylic acid) (PAA), polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF), poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA), polyethylene oxide (PEO), polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene (PVDF-HFP), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), polyacrylonitrile (PAN), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), and combinations thereof ([0474] polyacrylonitrile).
Yamazaki fails to teach greater than 0 wt.% to less than or equal to about 40 wt.% of the polymer host.
Miyasoto is analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gel polymer electrolytes. Miyasoto teaches greater than 0 wt.% to less than or equal to about 40 wt.% of the polymer host ([0187]; solid polymer compound is represented by general formula (1); [0197]-[0199] range of mass % of solid polymeric compound 0.1% to 100% by mass and most preferably 0.1% to 20% by mass). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Yamazaki and Miyasoto are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gel polymer electrolytes. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Yamazaki by providing greater than 0 wt.% to less than or equal to about 40 wt.% of the polymer host. Doing so allows for gelatinization of the electrolyte solution (Miyasoto [0191]) and have a battery with improved initial resistance characteristic (Miyasoto [0035]).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki in view of Hibara, and further in view of Miyasoto et al. (US-20160108070-A1), hereinafter Miyasoto.
Regarding claim 19, Yamazaki teaches a gel polymer electrolyte for an electrochemical cell ([0473]) that cycles lithium ions ([0002]), the gel polymer electrolyte comprising: a polymer host ([0473] – [0474]); a liquid electrolyte comprising:
a first lithium salt comprising a lithium cation (Li) and an anion selected from the group consisting of: bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (TFSI), trifluoromethanesulfonate (triflate), bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (FSI-), cyclo-difluoromethane-1,1- bis(sulfonyl)imide (DMSI), bis(perfloroethanesulfonyl)imide (BETI), cyclo-hexafluoropropane-1,1-bis(sulfonyl)imide (HPSI), and combinations thereof ([0260]; [0264] the electrolyte salts may be used singly or in combinations of two or more thereof; [0266] an inorganic lithium salt and an organic lithium salt are used in combination; [0266] organic salts CF3SO3Li, LiC(FSO2)2);
a second lithium salt comprising a lithium cation (Li+) and an anion selected from the group consisting of: tetrafluoroborate, bis(oxalate)boarate (BOB), tetracyanoboarate (bison), difluoro(oxalato)borate (DFOB), bis(fluoromalonato)borate (BFMB), and combinations thereof ([0256] inorganic lithium salts such as LiBF4; [0264] the electrolyte salts may be used singly or in combinations of two or more thereof; [0266] an inorganic lithium salt and an organic lithium salt are used in combination);
and a third lithium salt that is distinct from the second lithium salt and comprises a lithium cation (Li+) and an anion selected from the group consisting of: bis(oxalate)boarate (BOB), tetrafluoroborate, tetracyanoboarate (bison), difluoro(oxalato)boarate (DFOB), bis(floromalonato)borate (BFMB), and combinations thereof ([0227]; [0247]; [0251]-[0252] the compound (5) is preferably lithium bis(oxalate)borate),
greater than or equal to about 0.1 wt.% to less than or equal to about 10 wt.% of a sulfolene additive ([0427; [0434] aids can be used including sulfur-containing compounds such as sulfolene; aids are in the amount of 0.01% to 5% by mass based on 100% by mass of the electrolyte solution); and greater than or equal to about 0.1 wt.% to less than or equal to about 5 wt.% of an ethylene carbonate additive selected from the group consisting of vinyl ethylene carbonate (VEC), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), vinylene carbonate, and combinations thereof ([0344]-[0353]).). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Yamazaki fails to teach that the sulfolene additive is represented by one of the following structures:
PNG
media_image2.png
248
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where R1, R2, and R3 are independently selected from hydrogen, linear or branched alkyl groups, linear or branched alkene groups, linear or branched alkoxyl groups, linear or branched ether groups, phenyl groups, mono-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, di-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, tri-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, nitro groups, cyanogen groups, halogen groups, or a combination thereof and R4 is selected from linear or branched alkyl groups, linear or branched alkene groups, linear or branched alkoxyl groups, linear or branched ether groups, phenyl groups, mono-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, di-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, tri-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, nitro groups, cyanogen groups, or a combination thereof.
Hibara is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sulfolene additives for battery electrolytes ([0001]). Hibara teaches a sulfolene additive represented by one of the following structures:
PNG
media_image2.png
248
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where R1, R2, and R3 are independently selected from hydrogen, linear or branched alkyl groups, linear or branched alkene groups, linear or branched alkoxyl groups, linear or branched ether groups, phenyl groups, mono-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, di-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, tri-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, nitro groups, cyanogen groups, halogen groups, or a combination thereof and R4 is selected from linear or branched alkyl groups, linear or branched alkene groups, linear or branched alkoxyl groups, linear or branched ether groups, phenyl groups, mono-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, di-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, tri-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, nitro groups, cyanogen groups, or a combination thereof (see formula 1 in the original non-translated version; [0008]; [0010]-[0013]; R1 to R10 may be the same or different and each represent a hydrogen atom or an alkyl group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamazaki to further specify the type of sulfolene additive such as in Hibara. Doing so helps suppress the reductive decomposition reaction during charging and improves charge-discharge efficiency (Hibara 0014]) and improve cycle characteristics of the battery (Hibara [0022]).
Yamazaki fails to teach greater than 1 wt.% to less than or equal to about 40 wt.% of a polymer host.
Miyasoto is analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gel polymer electrolytes. Miyasoto teaches greater than 1 wt.% to less than or equal to about 40 wt.% of a polymer host ([0187]; solid polymer compound is represented by general formula (1); [0197]-[0199] range of mass % of solid polymeric compound 0.1% to 100% by mass and most preferably 0.1% to 20% by mass). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Yamazaki and Miyasoto are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gel polymer electrolytes. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Yamazaki by providing greater than 0 wt.% to less than or equal to about 40 wt.% of the polymer host. Doing so allows for gelatinization of the electrolyte solution (Miyasoto [0191]) and have a battery with improved initial resistance characteristic (Miyasoto [0035]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Yamazaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 19. Yamazaki also teaches wherein the sulfolene additive is a first sulfolene additive ([0427; [0434] aids can be used including sulfur-containing compounds such as sulfolene) and the gel polymer electrolyte further comprises a second sulfolene additive ([0487] the electrolyte includes a sulfone-based compound in addition to known aids) represented by one of the following structures:
PNG
media_image1.png
253
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where R1, R2, and R3 are independently selected from hydrogen, linear or branched alkyl groups, linear or branched alkene groups, linear or branched alkoxyl groups. linear or branched ether groups, phenyl groups, mono-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, di-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, tri-substituted phenyl groups having linear or branched alkyl groups, nitro groups, cyanogen groups, halogen groups, or a combination thereof and R4 is selected from the hydrogen, halogen groups, or a combination thereof ([0491] 3-sulfolene as the sulfone-based compound).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP-2002025613-A teaches including a sulfolene or derivative of a sulfolene in an electrolyte such as 2- sulfolene, 3-sulfolene, 2-methyl-2-sulfolene, 3-methyl-2-sulfolene, 2-methyl-3-sulfolene, 3- methyl-3-sulfolene, 2,5-dimethyl-2-sulfolene, 2,3-dimethyl-2-sulfolene, 2,3-dimethyl-3- sulfolene, and 3,4-dimethyl-3-sulfolene to suppress the reaction between the cathode, anode, and electrolyte, suppressing heat generation from the battery reaction and preventing excessive current ([0008]-[0009])
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 MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722