DETAILED ACTION
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
No claims are amended. Claims 1-9 stand withdrawn. Claims 11-20, as filed 31 March 2026, are examined herein. No new matter is included.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that “Burdynska discloses a polymerized composition and not "a base polymer material" as claimed by Applicant in claim 10”. Applicant further argues that the claimed precursors (or mixture of polymer matrix precursors) are an intermediate material in an intermediate-molecular mass state, which is capable of undergoing further polymerization to a final, high-molecular-mass polymer, and that the claimed base polymer is the finished, high-molecular-mass polymer that provides the foundational properties of the final product. As an example… a base polymer material (which in this case is used as a binder for the composition), lithium salts for ionic conductivity, and an inorganic filler material. Examples of polymers that may be used for the UV curable polymer electrolyte coating include PEGDA, PEGMA, PEGDMA, PVDF-HFP, PVDF, PEO, PEG, PAN, PMMA, BEMA, combination of above and all possible Li stable polymer materials." Examiner notes that the instant specification does not include a special definition of “base polymer.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of “a base polymer material” of claim 10 is determined to include “a polymer material capable of further crosslinking.” Burdynska at [0082] teaches that the in-situ polymerization reaction may include …form longer polymer chains… and/or introduce cross-links between polymer chains.” Because Burdynska’s polymer is capable of crosslinking, the polymer is therefore a “base polymer”, meeting the instant claim limitation.
Applicant further argues that Burdynska teaches against the claimed base polymer material at (Paragraphs 70 and 74) "[highly polar polymers such as polyvinylacetate and polyethylene oxide (PEO), are not effective polymer backbones as they may interact too strongly with the inorganic phase. Polymers that require highly polar solvents (e.g., polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)) may not be appropriate, as such solvents are incompatible with inorganic particles such as sulfide glasses..." This argument is not persuasive. Examiner notes that claim 10 requires inorganic filler and also auxiliary electrolyte, but does not specifically require a sulfide glass. Further, Burdynska at [0085] discloses three polymerization methods (condensation, ring opening, and free radical) that are compatible with sulfide-based ionic conductors.
Further regarding claim 10, Applicant argues that the instant specification at [0038] (emphasis added) “In embodiments, auxiliary electrolyte may be included to enhance the conductive properties of the coating, such as nonflammable Li stable, non-solvent-based electrolyte” constitutes a special definition. This is not persuasive. Provision of one example of a class of materials is not sufficient to define the class. Examiner notes that the BRI of “auxiliary electrolyte” is an electrolyte material. Alumina, as taught by Burdynska, meets the above BRI. Even if claim 10 is amended to require wherein the auxiliary electrolyte is a non-flammable non-solvent-based electrolyte”, the alumina of Burdynska [0126] meets those limitations.
Applicant argue (claim 13) that Burdynska teaches against the use of PVA and PEO as polymer backbones in conjunction with a sulfide glass. Applicant's arguments are not persuasive. Examiner notes that claim 13 requires inorganic filler, but does not specifically require a sulfide glass. Further, Burdynska at [0085] discloses three polymerization methods (condensation, ring opening, and free radical) that are compatible with sulfide-based ionic conductors.
Absent a special definition of “base polymer”, Burdynska’s polymer at [0082] which can undergo an in-situ polymerization reaction that forms longer polymer chains… and/or introduces cross-links between polymer chains can be considered a base polymer.
Regarding the limitation “auxiliary non-flammable electrolyte” of claim 10, Applicant argues that Burdynska fails to disclose an auxiliary electrolyte to prevent, for example, thermal runaway. However, Applicant specifically discloses (instant specification, [0038]) an "auxiliary non-flammable electrolyte," that may be, for example, "[i]n embodiments, auxiliary electrolyte may be included to enhance the conductive properties of the coating, such as nonflammable Li stable, non-solvent-based electrolyte." Burdynska discloses "ionically conductive inorganic particles are mixed in a solution" this is not the same as or similar to an "auxiliary non-flammable electrolyte" added to a protective coating on a lithium metal anode as claimed by Applicant in claim 10. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Examiner notes that the statements in the specification at [0038] (above) and at [0042] “auxiliary electrolyte (non-flammable ionic conduction enhancer)” do not constitute a special definition of auxiliary non-flammable electrolyte. Because there is no special definition, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term is determined to include its common meaning, e.g. a material which has comparatively high ion conduction and is non-flammable under battery conditions.
While Burdynska does not explicitly use the term "auxiliary non-flammable electrolyte", Burdynska’s teachings at [0126] “a filler may or may not be an ion conductor” and [0011] ( the addition of ionically conductive inorganic particles) meet the BRI of an auxiliary non-flammable electrolyte.
Applicant further argues that the instant rejection combines multiple embodiments from [0126] without providing motivation to combine. Applicant's arguments are not persuasive. A person of ordinary skill would understand that salts, conductivity enhancers, filler materials, dispersants, may be added (as disclosed at [0126]) “to facilitate manufacture of an electrolyte having mechanical properties desired for a particular application.” The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.07).
The rejection under 35 USC 103 is maintained.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burdynska (US 20190135988 A1 in view of Laramie (US 20160344067 A1), Soga (US 20180219235 A1), and Gotro, 2016, “UV Curing: Part One, Let There be Light!”, downloaded from https://polymerinnovationblog.com/uv-curing-part-one-let-light/
Regarding claim 10, Burdynska teaches a method of providing a protective coating ([0047] resisting dendrites, [0145] passivation layer on the surface of an electrode) on a lithium metal anode (FIG. 15, [0026] lithium or lithium alloyed metal), the method comprising:
combining a base polymer material … to form a precursor polymer electrolyte composition ([0134] polymer matrix … poly(acrylate) [0129] “the polymers of the organic matrix may be characterized by a backbone”)
Regarding the limitation one or more lithium salts, Burdynska at [0003-0004] teaches the need for high ionic conductivity in the film, and at [0126] teaches (emphasis added) “the solid - state compositions may or may not include an added salt. Salts such as lithium salts (e.g. , LiPF , LiTFSI) may be added to improve conductivity”, and at [0126] “a filler may or may not be an ion conductor.”
Regarding the limitation an auxiliary non-flammable electrolyte, Burdynska at [0010] teaches the addition of ionically conductive inorganic particles (auxiliary non-flammable electrolyte).
While Burdynska does not teach a specific embodiment having both lithium salts and ionically conductive inorganic particles, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add both lithium salts and ionically conductive inorganic particles as suggested by Burdynska to the dendrite-resisting layer of Burdynska, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving ionic conductivity.
inorganic filler ([0126] filler materials including ceramic fillers)
dispersant ([0126] the composite may include one or more dispersants),
Burdynska does not explicitly teach a specific embodiment comprising inorganic filler and dispersant. However, Burdynska teaches [0003-0004] the need for polymer coatings with high ionic conductivity, high density, and good adhesion. Burdynska teaches [0126] the use of inorganic fillers, dispersants, “additional organic components to facilitate manufacture of an electrolyte having mechanical properties desired for a particular application”, and at [0129] teaches chain extenders as predictable potential solutions to create a formulation meeting these needs. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select Burdynska’s materials as part of a finite number of identifiable, predictable solutions to create the desired polymer coating, with a reasonable expectation of success, thus rendering obvious the selection of inorganic fillers and dispersant.
Regarding the plasticizer, Burdynska discloses [0103] the use of triethylene glycol as a chain extender. (Examiner notes that triethylene glycol is used a plasticizer under some circumstances.) However, Burdynska does not explicitly teach that triethylene glycol is a plasticizer.
Laramie, in the field of lithium anode protective layers, discloses (abstract) a polymer protection layer. At [0073] Laramie discloses that the layer may include a plasticizer for the purpose of improved flexibility. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to add a plasticizer as taught by Laramie to the precursor polymer electrolyte composition of Burdynska, with a reasonable expectation of obtaining a successful protective coating.
Burdynska does not explicitly teach a specific embodiment comprising a polymerization initiator and a rheology modifier in a solvent. However, Burdynska at [0088] teaches “the radical initiator may be … a photo – activated initiator (referred to as a photo-initiator), and at [0087] (meth)acrylate (polymer precursor) and photo-activated initiator to “freeze the ionically conductive inorganic particles in place”) At [0014] Burdynska teaches in-situ polymerization of a mixture of polymer matrix precursors and ionically conductive inorganic particles.
Soga, in a related field of endeavor, discloses ([0051], [0059] the use of a photo-radical initiator in combination with a (meth)acrylate monomer, where the photo initiator is a reactive diluent, and teaches that (meth)acrylate has excellent photo-curability. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select a photo initiator in order to carry out in-situ polymerization of modified Burdynska’s film using light, and to select a (meth)acrylate monomer, used in combination with Burdynska’s photo initiator, as the as the rheology modifier, based on Soga’s teaching of excellent photo-curability, with a reasonable expectation of freezing the ionically conductive inorganic particles in place and successfully achieving a well-cured coating.
Burdynska further teaches:
depositing the precursor polymer electrolyte composition on a surface of the lithium metal anode; and ([0025] the film is cast on a substrate prior to initiating polymerization)
Burdynska does not explicitly teach a specific embodiment comprising irradiating the precursor polymer electrolyte composition with an ultraviolet (UV) light for a predetermined length of time to dry and cure the precursor polymer electrolyte composition to form a polymer electrolyte protective coating on the surface of the lithium metal anode. However, Burdynska teaches [0015] ultraviolet activated in-situ polymerization and [0025] “the film is dried”. At [0166-0167], Burdynska teaches heating at 125 ˚C for two hours and drying at 60 ˚C under vacuum for 24 hours.
Gotro, in the field of UV curing of polymers, discloses “full cure in under 60 seconds.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select a predetermined 60 second curing time for the coating of modified Burdynska, in order to achieve full cure, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, Burdynska in view of Laramie, Sogo and Gotro teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Burdynska further teaches wherein depositing the precursor polymer electrolyte composition comprises spreading the precursor polymer electrolyte composition on the surface of the lithium metal anode using a blade. ([0166] the slurry was cast using a doctor blade)
Regarding claim 12, Burdynska in view of Laramie, Sogo and Gotro teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Burdynska further teaches wherein the precursor polymer electrolyte composition comprises a slurry. ([0166] slurry)
Regarding claim 13, Burdynska in view of Laramie, Sogo and Gotro teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. At [0003-0005] Burdynska teaches the need for polymer coatings with high ionic conductivity, high density, and good adhesion. Burdynska teaches [0134] that the polymer matrix includes a poly(acrylate).
Laramie discloses [0076] that PMMA is suitable for use in an ion conductive layer. PMMA is a candidate are within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select Laramie’s PMMA for use in the coating of modified Burdynska, because is member of the polyacrylate family and therefore is suitable for substitution, with a reasonable expectation of creating a successful protective coating.
Regarding claim 14, Burdynska in view of Laramie, Sogo and Gotro teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Burdynska further teaches wherein the inorganic filler comprises a ceramic material. ([0126] ceramic fillers such as Al2O3)
Regarding claim 15, Burdynska in view of Laramie, Sogo and Gotro teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Burdynska further teaches wherein the initiator comprises at least one of a photo and/or a thermal polymerization initiator. ([0088] The radical initiator may be … a photo – activated initiator (referred to as a photo - initiator))
Regarding claim 16, Burdynska in view of Laramie, Sogo and Gotro teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Burdynska does not use the terms rheology modifier or reactive diluent, but does teach [0087-0088] the use of (meth)acrylate (polymer precursor) and photo-activated initiator)
Soga, in a related field of endeavor, discloses ([0051], [0059] the use of a photo-radical initiator in combination with a (meth)acrylate monomer, where the photo initiator acts as a reactive diluent, and teaches that (meth)acrylate has excellent photo-curability.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select (meth)acrylate monomer, used with a photo initiator, as the as the rheology modifier of modified Burdynska, based on Soga’s teaching of excellent photo-curability, with a reasonable expectation of successfully achieving a well-cured coating, thus rendering obvious the selection of an acrylic polymer diluted with a reactive diluent.
Regarding claim 17, Burdynska in view of Laramie, Sogo and Gotro teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Burdynska further teaches [0156] wherein the polymer electrolyte protective coating has a thickness in a range 5 microns to 50 microns, which overlaps the claimed range of between 1-40 microns. At [0003] Burdynska contemplates that if the coating is too thick, bulk electrolyte resistance will be too high, and if the film is too thin, voids will allow dendrite penetration.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to optimize the thickness of modified Burdynska’s protective coating, with a reasonable expectation of balancing dendrite protection and low resistance of the electrolyte, with a reasonable expectation of selecting a value in the overlapping part of the range.
Regarding claim 18, Burdynska in view of Laramie, Sogo and Gotro teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Burdynska further teaches [0156] the solid-state electrode (lithium metal anode) has a thickness of less than 100 microns, which overlaps the claimed range of 0.1 to 100 microns.
Regarding claim 19, Burdynska in view of Laramie, Sogo and Gotro teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Burdynska further teaches laminating the lithium metal anode, a cathode structure, and an electrolyte material together to form a lithium cell for a lithium metal battery. ([0009] battery with anode, cathode, and solid-state electrolyte, [0013] applying pressure increases ionic conductivity, [0014] in-situ polymerization.) At [0005] Burdynska teaches that ionic conductivity is desirable.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to apply pressure to laminate the layers of modified Burdynska’ s battery, with a reasonable expectation of successfully creating a battery with improved ionic conductivity.
Regarding claim 20, Burdynska in view of Laramie, Sogo and Gotro teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Burdynska further teaches wherein the lithium metal anode comprises a lithium alloy material. ([0026] lithium or lithium alloyed metal)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
