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 .
Response to Amendment
The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.130A filed October 27th, 2025 is sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 4-8 and 18 based upon the rejection of Hyun et al under 35 U.S.C 103.
The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.130A filed October 27th, 2025 is sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 11, 13-16, 22-23, and 24-37 based upon the rejection of de Moraes et al under 35 U.S.C 103.
In response to the amendments received in the Remarks on October 27th, 2025:
Claims 1-17 and 19-37 are pending in the current applications, claims 1, 8, 12, 16-17, 19-20, 23-24 and 34 are amended and claim 18 is cancelled.
Claim 1 has been amended to include “and wherein the ionogel electrolyte ink is a screen-printable ionogel electrolyte ink.”
Claim 8 has been amended to exclude “printable” and include “electrolyte”.
Claim 12 has been amended to change “hydrotalcite-like” to “hydrotalcite”.
Claim 16 has been amended to remove duplicate terms.
Claim 17 has been amended to include “wherein the single solvent comprises” and exclude “including”.
Claim 18 has been cancelled.
Claim 19 has been amended to change “A” to “An”.
Claim 20 has been amended to exclude “one or more neuromorphic computing devices, one or more flexible electronics, one or more printed electronics,”.
Claim 23 has been amended to include “or” and exclude “or other electrochemically active cathode materials” and “or other electrochemically active anode materials.”
Claim 24 has been amended to correct “LEP” to “LFP” and specify that LTO is referencing “Li4Ti5O12”.
Claim 34 has been amended to replace “the high” with “a”.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending from the Office Action of July 28th, 2025:
The previous specification objections have been overcome in view of the replacement specification provided on October 27th, 2025, wherein the duplicate terms have been removed.
The previous claim objections have been overcome in view of the amendments received in the Remarks on October 27th, 2025.
The previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b) regarding claims 16 is maintained in view of the amendments received in the Remarks on October 27th, 2025.
The previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b) regarding claims 12, 17, 23 and 34 have been overcome in view of the amendments received in the Remarks on October 27th, 2025.
The previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(d) have been overcome in view of the amendments received in the Remarks on October 27th, 2025.
The previous double patenting rejection in regards to the co-pending application has been upheld and is now not provisional with the issuance of US Patent 12,473, 451 B1.
The previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) have been upheld in view of the amendments received in the Remarks on October 27th, 2025.
The previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 103 have been overcome in view of the affidavits receive on October 27th, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 27th, 2025, in regards to Morishita, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 has been amended to further include “wherein the ionogel electrolyte ink is a screen-printable ionogel electrolyte ink” and as acknowledged in the previous Office Action that Morishita is silent to teach on the ionogel electrolyte being screen printable.
In response to applicants’ argument, Morishita teaches a dispersion in which boron nitride nanosheets, the gelling matrix material, are dispersed in an ionic liquid [Morishita, 0008], and a solvent other than an ionic liquid [Morishita, 0015], wherein such material is suitable to be an electrolyte for a secondary battery [Morishita, 0180]. Therefore, Morishita teaches the same components within the composition, so it is expected the composition would have the same properties, i.e. wherein the electrolyte is screen-printable. As shown in MPEP 2112.01, Part II, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim 16 is 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “TiO2 (anatase and rutile), Pb (Zr, Ti)O3, and (Pb, La)(Zr, Ti)O3” in lines 2 and 3 of the claim. It is not clear whether the limitation in the parenthesis is mandatory or optional. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-2, 4, 6, 8-9, 12-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14, 23-26, 29, 30 and 32-36 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 473, 451. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inks have the same relationship between G’ and G”, thus the ink of U.S. Patent No. 12, 472, 451 claims 14 and 30 suggests the ink of claim 6 of this application. The electrochemical device U.S. Patent No. 12, 472, 451 claims 23 and 24 suggests the device of claims 19 and 20 of this application. While U.S. Patent No. 12, 472, 451 claims do not teach the electrochemical device being a solid-state lithium battery comprising the ionogel electrolyte ink of this application, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to produce the electrochemical device, being a solid-state lithium battery, comprising the ionogel electrolyte ink. The U.S. Patent No. 12, 472, 451 claims suggests the claimed ink and device of this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 4-10, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Morishita et al, JP 2015187057 A (already on the record).
Regarding Claim 1, Morishita discloses a dispersion in which boron nitride nanosheets, corresponding to the gelling matrix material, are highly dispersed in an ionic liquid [Morishita, 0008], and the composite contains a solvent other than the ionic liquid [Morishita, 0015], wherein such material is suitable as a functional material for various things, such as electrolytes for secondary batteries, such as lithium secondary batteries, solar cells, capacitors, fuel cells, etc. [Morishita, 0180], but is silent to disclose the dispersion being a screen-printable ionogel electrolyte ink.
While Morishita does not explicitly disclose the dispersion being a screen-printable ionogel electrolyte ink, Morishita discloses the use of boron nitride nanosheets -containing dispersion liquid, including hexagonal boron nitride (h-BN) [Morishita, 0021], which according to the instant specification, the gelling matrix comprises boron nitride nanosheet (BNNS), and in one embodiment the BBNS comprises hexagonal boron nitride (hBN) [instant specification, page 4, line 10 & line 14]. The boron nitride nanosheets are highly dispersed in an ionic liquid [Morishita, 0008], forming a composite including a solvent other than the ionic liquid [Morishita, 0015], wherein the ionic liquid used includes 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide [Morishita, 0069], which according to the instant specification, in one embodiment, the ionic liquid comprises 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (EMIM-TFSI) [instant specification, page 4, line 6 & line 7], and examples of the solvent other than the ionic liquid includes chloroform, dichloromethane, carbon tetrachloride, acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, diisobutyl ketone, methyl acetate, ethyl acetate, propyl acetate, isopropyl acetate, butyl acetate, isobutyl acetate, pentyl acetate, isopentyl acetate, amyl acetate, tetrahydrofuran, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, dimethylformaldehyde, dimethylacetamide, dimethylsulfoxide, acetonitrile, methanol, ethanol, propanol, isopropanol, butanol, hexanol, octanol, and hexafluoroisopropyl ether, isopropanol, ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, tetramethylene glycol, tetraethylene glycol, hexamethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, benzene, toluene, xylene, chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, trichlorobenzene, chlorophenol, phenol, tetrahydrofuran, sulfolane, 1,3-dimethyl-2-imidazolidinone, γ-butyrolactone, N-dimethylpyrrolidone, pentane, hexane, neopentane, cyclohexane, heptane, octane, isooctane, nonane, decane, and diethyl ether [Morishita, 0088], and according to the instant specification, in one embodiment, the at least one solvent comprises a solvent including ethyl lactate, cyclohexanone, terpineol, ethylene glycol, ethanol, isopropanol or butanone [instant specification, page 4, line 25 & line 26].
Therefore, based on MPEP 2112.01, Part II, "Products of identical chemical compositioncannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658(Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior artteaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarilypresent. Thus, the dispersion of Morishita comprising the boron nitride nanosheets, ionic liquid and a solvent other than the ionic liquid, would inherently be a screen-printable ionogel electrolyte ink.
Regarding Claim 4, Morishita discloses the ionogel electrolyte ink of claim 1, but is silent to disclose on having a viscosity that is tunable by a shear rate, wherein the ink viscosity decreased as the shear rate increase.
While Morishita does not explicitly disclose an ionogel electrolyte ink with a viscosity that is tunable by a shear rate, wherein the ink viscosity decreased as the shear rate increase, Morishita discloses by controlling the shear force applied to the boron nitride nanosheets the peeling of the sheets can proceed efficiently while suppressing damage in the planar direction [Morishita, 0103]. Further, Morishita discloses the use of boron nitride nanosheets -containing dispersion liquid, including hexagonal boron nitride (h-BN) [Morishita, 0021], which according to the instant specification, the gelling matrix comprises boron nitride nanosheet (BNNS), and in one embodiment the BBNS comprises hexagonal boron nitride (hBN) [instant specification, page 4, line 10 & line 14]. The boron nitride nanosheets are highly dispersed in an ionic liquid [Morishita, 0008], forming a composite including a solvent other than the ionic liquid [Morishita, 0015], wherein the ionic liquid used includes 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide [Morishita, 0069], which according to the instant specification, in one embodiment, the ionic liquid comprises 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (EMIM-TFSI) [instant specification, page 4, line 6 & line 7], and examples of the solvent other than the ionic liquid includes ethanol, isopropanol, and ethylene glycol, [Morishita, 0088], and according to the instant specification, in one embodiment, the at least one solvent comprises a solvent including ethyl lactate, cyclohexanone, terpineol, ethylene glycol, ethanol, isopropanol or butanone [instant specification, page 4, line 25 & line 26].
Therefore, based on MPEP 2112.01, Part II, "Products of identical chemical compositioncannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658(Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior artteaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarilypresent. Thus, the dispersion of Morishita comprising the boron nitride nanosheets, ionic liquid and a solvent other than the ionic liquid, would inherently have a viscosity that is tunable by a shear rate, wherein the ink viscosity decreased as the shear rate increase.
Regarding Claim 5, Morishita discloses the ionogel electrolyte ink of claim 4, but is silent to disclose the ink viscosity and sheet rate satisfy the relation of μ=Kγn-1, wherein μ and γ are the ink viscosity and the shear rate, n is a power law index of about 0.35, and K is a consistency index of about 44 Pa.
While Morishita does not explicitly disclose an ionogel electrolyte ink wherein the ink viscosity and sheet rate satisfy the relation of μ=Kγn-1, Morishita discloses by controlling the shear force applied to the boron nitride nanosheets the peeling of the sheets can proceed efficiently while suppressing damage in the planar direction [Morishita, 0103]. Further, Morishita discloses the use of boron nitride nanosheets -containing dispersion liquid, including hexagonal boron nitride (h-BN) [Morishita, 0021], which according to the instant specification, the gelling matrix comprises boron nitride nanosheet (BNNS), and in one embodiment the BBNS comprises hexagonal boron nitride (hBN) [instant specification, page 4, line 10 & line 14]. The boron nitride nanosheets are highly dispersed in an ionic liquid [Morishita, 0008], forming a composite including a solvent other than the ionic liquid [Morishita, 0015], wherein the ionic liquid used includes 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide [Morishita, 0069], which according to the instant specification, in one embodiment, the ionic liquid comprises 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (EMIM-TFSI) [instant specification, page 4, line 6 & line 7], and examples of the solvent other than the ionic liquid includes ethanol, isopropanol, and ethylene glycol, [Morishita, 0088], and according to the instant specification, in one embodiment, the at least one solvent comprises a solvent including ethyl lactate, cyclohexanone, terpineol, ethylene glycol, ethanol, isopropanol or butanone [instant specification, page 4, line 25 & line 26].
Therefore, based on MPEP 2112.01, Part II, "Products of identical chemical compositioncannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658(Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior artteaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarilypresent. Thus, the dispersion of Morishita comprising the boron nitride nanosheets, ionic liquid and a solvent other than the ionic liquid, would inherently have an ink viscosity and sheet rate that satisfy the relation of μ=Kγn-1.
Regarding Claim 6, Morishita discloses the ionogel electrolyte ink of claim 1, but is silent to disclose the ionogel electrolyte ink having a storage modulus (G’) that is higher than is loss modulus (G”) with limited frequency and temperature dependence, revealing the reliable solid-like behavior of the ionogel electrolyte ink.
While Morishita does not explicitly disclose the ionogel electrolyte ink having a storage modulus (G’) that is higher than is loss modulus (G”) with limited frequency and temperature dependence, revealing the reliable solid-like behavior of the ionogel electrolyte ink, Morishita discloses the boron nitride composite with the ionic liquid exhibits excelled properties inherent to the boron nitride nanosheets, such as thermal conductivity, insulation, thermal stability, and mechanical properties [Morishita, 0076]. Further, Morishita discloses the use of boron nitride nanosheets -containing dispersion liquid, including hexagonal boron nitride (h-BN) [Morishita, 0021], which according to the instant specification, the gelling matrix comprises boron nitride nanosheet (BNNS), and in one embodiment the BBNS comprises hexagonal boron nitride (hBN) [instant specification, page 4, line 10 & line 14]. The boron nitride nanosheets are highly dispersed in an ionic liquid [Morishita, 0008], forming a composite including a solvent other than the ionic liquid [Morishita, 0015], wherein the ionic liquid used includes 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide [Morishita, 0069], which according to the instant specification, in one embodiment, the ionic liquid comprises 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (EMIM-TFSI) [instant specification, page 4, line 6 & line 7], and examples of the solvent other than the ionic liquid includes ethanol, isopropanol, and ethylene glycol, [Morishita, 0088], and according to the instant specification, in one embodiment, the at least one solvent comprises a solvent including ethyl lactate, cyclohexanone, terpineol, ethylene glycol, ethanol, isopropanol or butanone [instant specification, page 4, line 25 & line 26].
Therefore, based on MPEP 2112.01, Part II, "Products of identical chemical compositioncannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658(Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior artteaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarilypresent. Thus, the dispersion of Morishita comprising the boron nitride nanosheets, ionic liquid and a solvent other than the ionic liquid, would inherently have a storage modulus (G’) that is higher than is loss modulus (G”) with limited frequency and temperature dependence, revealing the reliable solid-like behavior of the ionogel electrolyte ink.
Regarding Claim 7, Morishita discloses the ionogel electrolyte ink of claim 6, but is silent to disclose the electrolyte ink having a mechanical moduli (G”) exceeding 1 MPa, and high ionic conductivities exceeding 1 mS cm-1 at room temperature.
While Morishita does not explicitly disclose the electrolyte ink having a mechanical moduli (G”) exceeding 1 MPa, and high ionic conductivities exceeding 1 mS cm-1 at room temperature, Morishita discloses the boron nitride composite with the ionic liquid exhibits excelled properties inherent to the boron nitride nanosheets, such as thermal conductivity, insulation, thermal stability, and mechanical properties [Morishita, 0076]. Further, Morishita discloses the use of boron nitride nanosheets -containing dispersion liquid, including hexagonal boron nitride (h-BN) [Morishita, 0021], which according to the instant specification, the gelling matrix comprises boron nitride nanosheet (BNNS), and in one embodiment the BBNS comprises hexagonal boron nitride (hBN) [instant specification, page 4, line 10 & line 14]. The boron nitride nanosheets are highly dispersed in an ionic liquid [Morishita, 0008], forming a composite including a solvent other than the ionic liquid [Morishita, 0015], wherein the ionic liquid used includes 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide [Morishita, 0069], which according to the instant specification, in one embodiment, the ionic liquid comprises 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (EMIM-TFSI) [instant specification, page 4, line 6 & line 7], and examples of the solvent other than the ionic liquid includes ethanol, isopropanol, and ethylene glycol, [Morishita, 0088], and according to the instant specification, in one embodiment, the at least one solvent comprises a solvent including ethyl lactate, cyclohexanone, terpineol, ethylene glycol, ethanol, isopropanol or butanone [instant specification, page 4, line 25 & line 26].
Therefore, based on MPEP 2112.01, Part II, "Products of identical chemical compositioncannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658(Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior artteaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarilypresent. Thus, the dispersion of Morishita comprising the boron nitride nanosheets, ionic liquid and a solvent other than the ionic liquid, would inherently have mechanical moduli (G”) exceeding 1 MPa, and high ionic conductivities exceeding 1 mS cm-1 at room temperature.
Regarding Claim 8, Morishita discloses the ionogel electrolyte ink of claim 1, but is silent to disclose the ionic conductivity that increased with temperature.
While Morishita does not explicitly disclose an ionic conductivity that increased with temperature, Morishita discloses the boron nitride nanosheets of the boron nitride composite have excellent thermal conductivity and long-term heat resistance [Morishita, 0115]. Further, Morishita discloses the use of boron nitride nanosheets -containing dispersion liquid, including hexagonal boron nitride (h-BN) [Morishita, 0021], which according to the instant specification, the gelling matrix comprises boron nitride nanosheet (BNNS), and in one embodiment the BBNS comprises hexagonal boron nitride (hBN) [instant specification, page 4, line 10 & line 14]. The boron nitride nanosheets are highly dispersed in an ionic liquid [Morishita, 0008], forming a composite including a solvent other than the ionic liquid [Morishita, 0015], wherein the ionic liquid used includes 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide [Morishita, 0069], which according to the instant specification, in one embodiment, the ionic liquid comprises 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (EMIM-TFSI) [instant specification, page 4, line 6 & line 7], and examples of the solvent other than the ionic liquid includes ethanol, isopropanol, and ethylene glycol, [Morishita, 0088], and according to the instant specification, in one embodiment, the at least one solvent comprises a solvent including ethyl lactate, cyclohexanone, terpineol, ethylene glycol, ethanol, isopropanol or butanone [instant specification, page 4, line 25 & line 26].
Therefore, based on MPEP 2112.01, Part II, "Products of identical chemical compositioncannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658(Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior artteaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarilypresent. Thus, the dispersion of Morishita comprising the boron nitride nanosheets, ionic liquid and a solvent other than the ionic liquid, would inherently have an ionic conductivity that increased with temperature.
Regarding Claim 9, Morishita discloses the ionogel electrolyte ink of claim 1, wherein the ionic liquid is selected from the group comprising: Z+ cation and “imidazolium (3), pyridinium (4), pyridazinium (5), pyrimidinium (6), pyrazinium (7), pyrrolinium (8), 2H-pyrrolinium cation (9), triazolium (10), pyrrolidinium (11), piperidinium (12), ammonium (13), phosphonium (14), sulfonium (15), isoxazolium (16), oxazolium (17), thiazolium (18)) and analogs of these cations (modified cations obtained by introducing functional groups such as epoxy groups, amino groups, hydroxyl groups,
carboxylic acids, and acid anhydride groups into the above cations, etc.” [Morishita, 0044].
Regarding Claim 10, Morishita discloses the ionogel electrolyte ink of claim 10, wherein the ionic liquid comprises 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide [Morishita, 0069].
Regarding Claim 12, Morishita discloses the ionogel electrolyte ink of claim 1, wherein the gelling matrix comprises boron nitride nanosheets [Morishita, 0008].
Regarding Claim 17, Morishita discloses the ionogel electrolyte ink of claim 1, wherein the boron nitride nanosheet composite contains a solvent other than the ionic liquid, including organic solvents and water, which may be used alone or in combination, selected from the group consisting of: “chloroform, dichloromethane, carbon tetrachloride, acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, isobutyl ketone, methyl acetate, ethyl acetate, propyl acetate, isopropyl acetate, butyl acetate, isobutyl acetate, pentyl acetate, isopentyl acetate, amyl acetate, tetrahydrofuran, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, dimethyl formaldehyde, dimethylacetamide, dimethyl sulfoxide, acetonitrile, methanol, ethanol, propanol, isopropanol, butanol, hexanol, octanol, and hexafluoro isopropyl ether. Examples of the solvent include isopropanol, ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, tetramethylene glycol, tetra ethylene glycol, hexamethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, benzene, toluene, xylene, chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, trichlorobenzene, chlorophenol, phenol, tetrahydrofuran, sulfolane, 1,3-dimethyl-2-imidazolidinone, γ-butyrolactone, N-dimethyl pyrrolidone, pentane, hexane, neopentane, cyclohexane, heptane, octane, isooctane, nonane, decane, and diethyl ether” [Morishita, 0088].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Morishita et al, JP 2015187057 A (already on the record).
Regarding Claim 2, Morishita discloses the ionogel electrolyte of claim 1, wherein the amount of ionic liquid absorbed in the boron nitride nanosheet composite is not particularly limited, but is preferably 0.01 part by mass or more to 90 parts by mass or less per 100 parts of boron nitride [Morishita, 0080], therefore, if the ionic liquid is 2 parts by mass, and the boron nitride nanosheets are 1 part by mass, the ratio would be 1:2, which is ratio required by the claim.
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding Claim 3, Morishita discloses the ionogel electrolyte of claim 1, wherein the boron nitride composite is not limited, but preferably has a concentration of 1 mg/mL or more, to have the preferred thermal conductivity [Morishita, 0071].
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morishita et al, JP 2015187057 A (already on the record) as applied to claim 10, in further view of Rodrigues et al, WO 2016141301 A1.
Regarding Claim 11, Morishita teaches the ionogel electrolyte ink of claim 10, but is silent to teach on the EMIM-TFSI contains lithium bis(trifluoromethlysulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI) salt.
Rodrigues teaches a composition comprising boron nitride, an ionic liquid and a lithium salt, in some embodiment the lithium salt is lithium bis(trifluoromethlysulfonyl)imide [Rodrigues, 0004].
Rodrigues and Morishita are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Morishita to include the lithium salt is lithium bis(trifluoromethlysulfonyl)imide as taught by Rodrigues because such modification would result in h-BN absorbing twice as much at room temperature [Rodrigues, 0068] and have a conductivity above the benchmark value [Rodrigues, 0069].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morishita et al, JP 2015187057 A (already on the record) as applied to claim 12, in further view of Ye et al, Liquid-Phase Exfoliation of Hexagonal Boron Nitride into Boron Nitride Nanosheets in Common Organic Solvents with Hyperbranched Polyethylene as Stabilizer (as cited in IDS, copy provided for citation).
Regarding Claim 13, Morishita teaches the ionogel electrolyte of claim 12, but is silent to teach wherein the BNNS comprised hexagonal boron nitride (hBN) nanoplatelets that are formed from bulk hBN microparticles by a liquid-phase exfoliation method.
Ye teaches the large-scale production of boron nitride nanosheets (BNNS) via liquid phase-exfoliation of bulk hexagonal boron nitride (hBN) [Ye, abstract]. Bulk hexagonal boron nitride (h-BN) can be directly exfoliated into single-or few-layered BNNS [Ye, introduction, paragraph 3].
Ye and Morishita are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Morishita to include the liquid phase-exfoliation of bulk hexagonal boron nitride as taught by Ye because such modification would result in BNNS with few structural defects [Ye, introduction, paragraph 3].
The limitation “by liquid-phase exfoliation method” is a product-by-process limitation, and according to MPEP 2113, "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. 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." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) (Claim was directed to a novolac color developer).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morishita et al, JP 2015187057 A (already on the record) and Ye et al, Liquid-Phase Exfoliation of Hexagonal Boron Nitride into Boron Nitride Nanosheets in Common Organic Solvents with Hyperbranched Polyethylene as Stabilizer (as cited in IDS, copy provided for citation) as applied to claim 13, in further view Nemeth, WO 2015006161 A1.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Morishita teaches the ionogel electrolyte ink of claim 13, but is silent to teach on the exfoliated hBN nanoplatelet is coated with a thin amorphous carbon coating.
Nemeth teaches an electrochemical energy storage device comprising and electrically and ionically conductive matrix including functionalized boron nitride nanoparticles [Nemeth, 0007], wherein the functionalized boron nitride nanoparticles may include hexagonal boron nitride that may comprise a carbon coating [Nemeth, 0008].
Nemeth and Morishita are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Morishita to include the carbon coating as taught by Nemeth because such modification would result in boron nitride nanoparticles with a large electron acceptor strength [Nemeth, 0009].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morishita et al, JP 2015187057 A (already on the record) and Ye et al, Liquid-Phase Exfoliation of Hexagonal Boron Nitride into Boron Nitride Nanosheets in Common Organic Solvents with Hyperbranched Polyethylene as Stabilizer (as cited in IDS, copy provided for citation) as applied to claim 13, in further view of Shi et al, US 20170288280 A1 (already on the record).
Regarding Claim 16, Morishita teaches the ionogel electrolyte ink of claim 12, but is silent to teach on the oxide nanosheet comprising A1203, TiO2 (anatase and rutile), ZrO2, Nb2O5, HfO2, CaCu3Ti4O12, Pb(Zr,Ti)03, (Pb,La)(Zr,Ti)03, SiO2, A1203, HfSiO4, ZrO2, Hf02, Ta205, La203, LaAO3, Nb2O5, BaTiO3, SrTiO3, Ta20s, or a combination of them.
Shi teaches the addition of solid filler, such as silica, ZnO, TiO2, or Al2O3 to the ionogel [Shi, 0004].
Shi and Morishita are considered analogous arts in the area of ionogel electrolytes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Morishita to include the additions taught by Shi because such modification would result in a material with improved mechanical properties and increased ion conductivity [Shi, 0004].
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of O’Dwyer, WO 2019012012 A1 (already on the record, citing US 20210167376 A1 for reference) and Morishita et al, JP 2015187057 A (already on the record).
Regarding Claim 19, O’Dwyer teaches a 3D printed cell [O’Dwyer, 0011], corresponding to the electrochemical device of the claim, comprising a non-solid electrolyte material of an aqueous gel electrolyte deposited onto the surface of the anode and cathode material [O’Dwyer, 0017], but is silent to teach on the at least one component comprising the ionogel electrolyte ink of claim 1.
Morishita teaches a dispersion in which boron nitride nanosheets are highly dispersed in an ionic liquid [Morishita, 0008], wherein such material is suitable as a functional material for various things, such as electrolytes for secondary batteries, such as lithium secondary batteries, solar cells, capacitors, fuel cells, etc. [Morishita, 0180], corresponding to the ionogel electrolyte ink of the claim.
Morishita and O’Dwyer are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and electrochemical devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to replace the gel electrolyte of O’Dwyer with the ionogel electrolyte ink taught by Morishita because it is well-known to use a boron nitride nanosheet composite as an electrolyte in battery systems. Furthermore, a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2143, I, B).
Regarding Claim 20, modified O’Dwyer teaches the electrochemical device of claim 19, that is a 3D printed battery cell [O’Dwyer, 0011], that may be adapted to connect with other battery cells to form and array [O’Dwyer, 0033].
Regarding Claim 21, modified O’Dwyer teaches the electrochemical device of claim 19, comprising a first layer printed with a cathode material, corresponding to the cathode of the claim, a second layer with an anode material, corresponding to the anode of the claim, wherein an aqueous electrolyte gel material is deposited onto the surface of the cathode material and the anode material [O’Dwyer, 0080], corresponding to the ionogel electrolyte of the claim.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of O’Dwyer, WO 2019012012 A1 (already on the record, citing US 20210167376 A1 for reference) and Morishita et al, JP 2015187057 A (already on the record) as applied to claim 21 above, in further view of Rodrigues et al, WO 2016141301 A1.
Regarding Claim 22, modified O’Dwyer teach the electrochemical device of claim 21, but is silent to teach on the electrochemical device being a solid-state lithium-ion battery (LIB).
Rodrigues teaches an energy storage device, wherein the energy storage device is a battery, such as a lithium-ion battery [Rodrigues, 0007], and in some embodiments the boron nitride is in solid form [Rodrigues, 0006], indicating the battery is a solid-state lithium ion-battery.
Rodrigues and O’Dwyer are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify O’Dwyer to include the solid-state form as taught by Rodrigues because it is common in the art to use solid-state lithium ion batteries in devices. Furthermore, a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2143, I, B).
Regarding Claim 23, modified O’Dwyer teaches the electrochemical device of claim 22, wherein the cathode material comprises lithium cobalt oxide, LCO, [O’Dwyer, 0049], and the anode material comprised lithium titanate, LTO, [O’Dwyer, 0050].
Claims 24-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of O’Dwyer, WO 2019012012 A1 (already on the record, citing US 20210167376 A1 for reference) and Morishita et al, JP 2015187057 A (already on the record) and Rodrigues et al, WO 2016141301 A1, as applied to claim 22 above, in further view of Lewis et al, US 20160126558 A1 (already on the record).
Regarding Claim 24, modified O’Dwyer teaches the electrochemical device of claim 23, comprising the hBN [Morishita, 0096], corresponding to the ionogel electrolyte of the claim, wherein the electrolyte filament is printed [O’Dywer, 0008], wherein the cathode material is printed to the first layer of housing, corresponding to a first substrate, and the anode material is printed to the second layer of housing, corresponding to a second substrate, and the non-solid electrolyte material, corresponding to the ionogel electrolyte of the claim, is deposited onto the surface of the cathode material layer and the anode material [O’Dwyer, 0080], wherein the anode material comprised lithium titanate, LTO [O’Dwyer, 0030]. The first and second housing layers are sealed together, corresponding to the requirement of sandwiching the LFP/ionogel structure and the LTO/ionogel structure together, but modified O’Dwyer is silent to teach on the cathode material comprising LiFePO4.
Lewis teaches a 3D microbattery, comprising LiFePO4 (LFP) as an electrochemically active cathode material [Lewis, 0022].
Lewis and O’Dwyer are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to replace the electrochemically active cathode materials of O’Dwyer with the electrochemically active materials, LiFePO4, as taught by Lewis because it is well-known to use LiFePO4 as an electrochemically active materials in lithium ion batteries. Furthermore, a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2143, I, B).
Regarding Claim 25, modified O’Dwyer teaches the electrochemical device of claim 24, but is silent to teach on the LFP ink and the LTO ink comprises the active material, carbon black, poly (vinylidene fluoride) dispersed in a solvent of 1-methyl-2-pyrrolidinone.
Rodrigues teaches the preparation of the electrode by missing the anode or cathode material with ultra-fine graphite and poly (vinylidene di-fluoride) and addition N-methly-2-pyrrolidinone to form a viscous slurry [Rodrigues, 0107].
While modified O’Dwyer does not explicitly teach the use of carbon black added to the active material of the LFP or LTO inks, Rodrigues teaches the addition of ultra-fine graphite along with poly (vinylidene di-fluoride) and addition N-methly-2-pyrrolidinone to form a viscous slurry [Rodrigues, 0107], and based on this configuration, the performance of the LTO half-cell showed and electrochemically stable electrolyte and negligible capacity fade [Rodrigues, 0010]. Therefore, it would be obvious to optimize the carbon material within the electrode to be carbon black based on the design of the electrode and to achieve the most desirable and efficient properties.
Regarding Claim 26, modified O’Dwyer teaches the electrochemical device of claim 24, wherein the hBN nanosheet have a thickness of 20 nm or less [Morishita, 0026], corresponding to the first and second hBN ionogel electrolytes of the claim
Regarding Claim 27, modified O’Dywer teaches the electrochemical device of claim 24, but is silent to teach the LIB with a specific discharge capacity of 137 mAh g-1 at 0.1C, which remains higher that 100 mAh g-1 at rates up to 0.5C, at room temperature.
While modified O’Dwyer does not explicitly teach a LIB with a specific discharge capacity of 137 mAh g-1 at 0.1C, which remains higher that 100 mAh g-1 at rates up to 0.5C, at room temperature, Rodrigues teaches an energy storage device with a theoretical capacity of more than 100 mAh/g at 120 °C [Rodrigues, 0062], specifically an LTO half-cell at room temperature with capacities ranging from 54 mAh/g to 101 mAh/g depending on the thickness of the electrolyte layer. Further, modified O’Dywer teaches an electrochemical device wherein the cathode comprises comprising LiFePO4 (LFP) as an electrochemically active cathode material [Lewis, 0022] and lithium titanate (LTO) [O’Dwyer, 0030] as the anode material, which according to the instant specification, the cathode comprised LiFePO4, LFP, as the cathode material and the anode comprised LTO,[instant specification, page 5, line 14 & line 15],and the cathode material is printed to the first layer of housing, corresponding to a first substrate, and the anode material is printed to the second layer of housing, corresponding to a second substrate, and the non-solid electrolyte material, corresponding to the ionogel electrolyte of the claim, is deposited onto the surface of the cathode material layer and the anode material wherein the first and second housing layers are sealed together[O’Dwyer, 0080], as stated in the instant specification [instant specification, page 5, lines 14-20]. Therefore, the electrochemical device of modified O’Dwyer has the same components as the battery of the instant specification, and absence of a record to the contrary, it is expected the battery of modified O’Dwyer has a specific discharge capacity of 137 mAh g-1 at 0.1C, which remains higher that 100 mAh g-1 at rates up to 0.5C, at room temperature.
Regarding Claim 28, modified O’Dwyer teaches the electrochemical device of claim 24, but is silent to teach the LIB with a specific discharge capacity of 141 mAh g-1 at 0.1C, which remains higher that 100 mAh g-1 at rates up to 2C, at about 60 °C.
While modified O’Dwyer does not explicitly teach a LIB with a specific discharge capacity of 141 mAh g-1 at 0.1C, which remains higher that 100 mAh g-1 at rates up to 2C, at about 60 °C,
Rodrigues teaches an energy storage device with a theoretical capacity of more than 100 mAh/g at 120 °C [Rodrigues, 0062], specifically an LTO half-cell at room temperature with capacities ranging from 54 mAh/g to 101 mAh/g depending on the thickness of the electrolyte layer. Further, modified O’Dywer teaches an electrochemical device wherein the cathode comprises comprising LiFePO4 (LFP) as an electrochemically active cathode material [Lewis, 0022] and lithium titanate (LTO) [O’Dwyer, 0030] as the anode material, which according to the instant specification, the cathode comprised LiFePO4, LFP, as the cathode material and the anode comprised LTO,[instant specification, page 5, line 14 & line 15],and the cathode material is printed to the first layer of housing, corresponding to a first substrate, and the anode material is printed to the second layer of housing, corresponding to a second substrate, and the non-solid electrolyte material, corresponding to the ionogel electrolyte of the claim, is deposited onto the surface of the cathode material layer and the anode material wherein the first and second housing layers are sealed together[O’Dwyer, 0080], as stated in the instant specification [instant specification, page 5, lines 14-20]. Therefore, the electrochemical device of modified O’Dwyer has the same components as the battery of the instant specification, and absence of a record to the contrary, it is expected the battery of modified O’Dwyer has a specific discharge capacity of 141 mAh g-1 at 0.1C, which remains higher that 100 mAh g-1 at rates up to 2C, at about 60 °C.
Regarding Claim 29, modified O’Dwyer teaches the electrochemical device of claim 24, but is silent to teach on the LIB having a capacity loss being less than 0.05% of an initial capacity per cycle for 300 cycles, and an average Coulombic efficiency for the 300 cycles exceeding 99.9%, at room temperature.
While modified O’Dwyer does not explicitly teach the LIB having a capacity loss being less than 0.05% of an initial capacity per cycle for 300 cycles, and an average Coulombic efficiency for the 300 cycles exceeding 99.9%, at room temperature, Rodrigues teaches the composition demonstrated thermal stability at temperatures above 100 °C for over 100 cycles with a total capacity face of less than 5%, thermal and electrochemical stability for over 600 cycles at 120 °C, with a total capacity fade of less than 3%, and thermal and electrochemical stability for over 50 cycles at 150 °C with a total capacity fade of less than 2% [Rodrigues, 0042].Further, modified O’Dywer teaches an electrochemical device wherein the cathode comprises comprising LiFePO4 (LFP) as an electrochemically active cathode material [Lewis, 0022] and lithium titanate (LTO) [O’Dwyer, 0030] as the anode material, which according to the instant specification, the cathode comprised LiFePO4, LFP, as the cathode material and the anode comprised LTO,[instant specification, page 5, line 14 & line 15],and the cathode material is printed to the first layer of housing, corresponding to a first substrate, and the anode material is printed to the second layer of housing, corresponding to a second substrate, and the non-solid electrolyte material, corresponding to the ionogel electrolyte of the claim, is deposited onto the surface of the cathode material layer and the anode material wherein the first and second housing layers are sealed together[O’Dwyer, 0080], as stated in the instant specification [instant specification, page 5, lines 14-20]. Therefore, the electrochemical device of modified O’Dwyer has the same components as the battery of the instant specification, and absence of a record to the contrary, it is expected the battery of modified O’Dwyer has an LIB with a capacity loss being less than 0.05% of an initial capacity per cycle for 300 cycles, and an average Coulombic efficiency for the 300 cycles exceeding 99.9%, at room temperature.
Regarding Claim 30, modified O’Dwyer teaches the electrochemical device of claim 24, but is silent to teach on the LIB having a capacity loss being less than 0.04% of an initial capacity per cycle for 500 cycles, and an average Coulombic efficiency for the 500 cycles exceeding 99.5%, at about 60 °C.
While modified O’Dwyer does not explicitly teach the LIB having a capacity loss being less than 0.04% of an initial capacity per cycle for 500 cycles, and an average Coulombic efficiency for the 500 cycles exceeding 99.5%, at about 60 °C, Rodrigues teaches the composition demonstrated thermal stability at temperatures above 100 °C for over 100 cycles with a total capacity face of less than 5%, thermal and electrochemical stability for over 600 cycles at 120 °C, with a total capacity fade of less than 3%, and thermal and electrochemical stability for over 50 cycles at 150 °C with a total capacity fade of less than 2% [Rodrigues, 0042].Further, modified O’Dywer teaches an electrochemical device wherein the cathode comprises comprising LiFePO4 (LFP) as an electrochemically active cathode material [Lewis, 0022] and lithium titanate (LTO) [O’Dwyer, 0030] as the anode material, which according to the instant specification, the cathode comprised LiFePO4, LFP, as the cathode material and the anode comprised LTO,[instant specification, page 5, line 14 & line 15],and the cathode material is printed to the first layer of housing, corresponding to a first substrate, and the anode material is printed to the second layer of housing, corresponding to a second substrate, and the non-solid electrolyte material, corresponding to the ionogel electrolyte of the claim, is deposited onto the surface of the cathode material layer and the anode material wherein the first and second housing layers are sealed together[O’Dwyer, 0080], as stated in the instant specification [instant specification, page 5, lines 14-20]. Therefore, the electrochemical device of modified O’Dwyer has the same components as the battery of the instant specification, and absence of a record to the contrary, it is expected the battery of modified O’Dwyer has an LIB having a capacity loss being less than 0.04% of an initial capacity per cycle for 500 cycles, and an average Coulombic efficiency for the 500 cycles exceeding 99.5%, at about 60 °C.
Regarding Claim 31, modified O’Dwyer teaches the electrochemical device of claim 24, wherein the battery can be shaped to match the device profile or design, a truly shape moldable battery, possible for use in flexible or curve products [O’Dwyer, 0096].
Regarding Claim 32, modified O’Dwyer teaches the electrochemical device of claim 25, but is silent to teach on the LIB maintaining a constant power output during repeated bending of the LIB regardless of the bending direction.
While modified O’Dwyer does not explicitly teach on the LIB maintaining a constant power output during repeated bending of the LIB regardless of the bending direction, O’Dwyer teaches a battery that can be shaped to match the device profile or design, and due to the design, the batteries are modular, wherein the capacity can be increased in thick or higher volume batteries, and the voltage can be tuned [O’Dwyer, 0096]. Further, modified O’Dywer teaches an electrochemical device wherein the cathode comprises comprising LiFePO4 (LFP) as an electrochemically active cathode material [Lewis, 0022] and lithium titanate (LTO) [O’Dwyer, 0030] as the anode material, which according to the instant specification, the cathode comprised LiFePO4, LFP, as the cathode material and the anode comprised LTO,[instant specification, page 5, line 14 & line 15],and the cathode material is printed to the first layer of housing, corresponding to a first substrate, and the anode material is printed to the second layer of housing, corresponding to a second substrate, and the non-solid electrolyte material, corresponding to the ionogel electrolyte of the claim, is deposited onto the surface of the cathode material layer and the anode material wherein the first and second housing layers are sealed together[O’Dwyer, 0080], as stated in the instant specification [instant specification, page 5, lines 14-20]. Therefore, the electrochemical device of modified O’Dwyer has the same components as the battery of the instant specification, and absence of a record to the contrary, it is expected the battery of modified O’Dwyer to maintain a constant power output during repeated bending of the LIB regardless of the bending direction.
Regarding Claim 33, modified O’Dwyer teaches the electrochemical device of claim 25, but is silent to teach on the LIB having Nyquist plots with negligible or no change before, during and after bending, thereby implying that the hBN ionogel electrolyte allows stable bending deformation without comprising the interfaces between the screen-printed layers.
While modified O’Dwyer does not explicitly teach on the LIB having Nyquist plots with negligible or no change before, during and after bending, thereby implying that the hBN ionogel electrolyte allows stable bending deformation without comprising the interfaces between the screen-printed layers, modified O’Dwyer teaches an electrochemical device wherein the cathode comprises comprising LiFePO4 (LFP) as an electrochemically active cathode material [Lewis, 0022] and lithium titanate (LTO) [O’Dwyer, 0030] as the anode material, which according to the instant specification, the cathode comprised LiFePO4, LFP, as the cathode material and the anode comprised LTO,[instant specification, page 5, line 14 & line 15],and the cathode material is printed to the first layer of housing, corresponding to a first substrate, and the anode material is printed to the second layer of housing, corresponding to a second substrate, and the non-solid electrolyte material, corresponding to the ionogel electrolyte of the claim, is deposited onto the surface of the cathode material layer and the anode material wherein the first and second housing layers are sealed together[O’Dwyer, 0080], as stated in the instant specification [instant specification, page 5, lines 14-20]. Therefore, the electrochemical device of modified O’Dwyer has the same components as the battery of the instant specification, and absence of a record to the contrary, it is expected the battery of modified O’Dwyer to have an LIB with Nyquist plots with negligible or no change before, during and after bending, thereby implying that the hBN ionogel electrolyte allows stable bending deformation without comprising the interfaces between the screen-printed layers,
Regarding Claim 34, modified O’Dwyer teaches the electrochemical device of claim 25, but is silent to teach on the hBN ionogel electrolytes have a high mechanical modulus that provides resilience in the presence of external forces.
While modified O’Dwyer does not explicitly teach the hBN ionogel electrolytes have a high mechanical modulus that provides resilience in the presence of external forces, Morishita discloses the boron nitride nanosheets of the boron nitride composite have excellent thermal conductivity and long-term heat resistance [Morishita, 0115]. Further, modified O’Dwyer teaches an electrochemical device wherein the cathode comprises comprising LiFePO4 (LFP) as an electrochemically active cathode material [Lewis, 0022] and lithium titanate (LTO) [O’Dwyer, 0030] as the anode material, which according to the instant specification, the cathode comprised LiFePO4, LFP, as the cathode material and the anode comprised LTO,[instant specification, page 5, line 14 & line 15],and the cathode material is printed to the first layer of housing, corresponding to a first substrate, and the anode material is printed to the second layer of housing, corresponding to a second substrate, and the non-solid electrolyte material, corresponding to the ionogel electrolyte of the claim, is deposited onto the surface of the cathode material layer and the anode material wherein the first and second housing layers are sealed together[O’Dwyer, 0080], as stated in the instant specification [instant specification, page 5, lines 14-20]. Therefore, the electrochemical device of modified O’Dwyer has the same components as the battery of the instant specification, and absence of a record to the contrary, it is expected the battery of modified O’Dwyer to have an hBN ionogel electrolytes have a high mechanical modulus that provides resilience in the presence of external forces.
Regarding Claim 35, modified O’Dwyer teaches the electrochemical device of claim 34, but is silent to teach wherein the LIB exhibits no signs of failure or no noticeable changes in an open-circuit voltage (OCV) when a compressive force applied to the LIB gradually raised to 500 N, thereby implying that the hBN ionogel electrolytes withstood high pressure and thus inhibit the external forces from forming short circuits between the cathode and anode electrodes.
While modified O’Dwyer does not explicitly teach wherein the LIB exhibits no signs of failure or no noticeable changes in an open-circuit voltage (OCV) when a compressive force applied to the LIB gradually raised to 500 N, thereby implying that the hBN ionogel electrolytes withstood high pressure and thus inhibit the external forces from forming short circuits between the cathode and anode electrodes, modified O’Dwyer teaches an electrochemical device wherein the cathode comprises comprising LiFePO4 (LFP) as an electrochemically active cathode material [Lewis, 0022] and lithium titanate (LTO) [O’Dwyer, 0030] as the anode material, which according to the instant specification, the cathode comprised LiFePO4, LFP, as the cathode material and the anode comprised LTO,[instant specification, page 5, line 14 & line 15],and the cathode material is printed to the first layer of housing, corresponding to a first substrate, and the anode material is printed to the second layer of housing, corresponding to a second substrate, and the non-solid electrolyte material, corresponding to the ionogel electrolyte of the claim, is deposited onto the surface of the cathode material layer and the anode material wherein the first and second housing layers are sealed together[O’Dwyer, 0080], as stated in the instant specification [instant specification, page 5, lines 14-20]. Therefore, the electrochemical device of modified O’Dwyer has the same components as the battery of the instant specification, and absence of a record to the contrary, it is expected the battery of modified O’Dwyer to exhibits no signs of failure or no noticeable changes in an open-circuit voltage (OCV) when a compressive force applied to the LIB gradually raised to 500 N, thereby implying that the hBN ionogel electrolytes withstood high pressure and thus inhibit the external forces from forming short circuits between the cathode and anode electrodes.
Regarding Claim 36, modified O’Dwyer teaches the electrochemical device of claim 34, but is silent to the hBN ionogel electrolytes maintaining the high mechanical moduli exceeding 1 MPa to temperatures as high as 140 °C.
While modified O’Dwyer does not explicitly teach the hBN ionogel electrolytes maintaining the high mechanical moduli exceeding 1 MPa to temperatures as high as 140 °C, Morishita discloses the boron nitride composite with the ionic liquid exhibits excelled properties inherent to the boron nitride nanosheets, such as thermal conductivity, insulation, thermal stability, and mechanical properties [Morishita, 0076]. Further, modified O’Dwyer teaches an electrochemical device wherein the cathode comprises comprising LiFePO4 (LFP) as an electrochemically active cathode material [Lewis, 0022] and lithium titanate (LTO) [O’Dwyer, 0030] as the anode material, which according to the instant specification, the cathode comprised LiFePO4, LFP, as the cathode material and the anode comprised LTO,[instant specification, page 5, line 14 & line 15],and the cathode material is printed to the first layer of housing, corresponding to a first substrate, and the anode material is printed to the second layer of housing, corresponding to a second substrate, and the non-solid electrolyte material, corresponding to the ionogel electrolyte of the claim, is deposited onto the surface of the cathode material layer and the anode material wherein the first and second housing layers are sealed together[O’Dwyer, 0080], as stated in the instant specification [instant specification, page 5, lines 14-20]. Therefore, the electrochemical device of modified O’Dwyer has the same components as the battery of the instant specification, and absence of a record to the contrary, it is expected the battery of modified O’Dwyer to have the hBN ionogel electrolytes maintaining the high mechanical moduli exceeding 1 MPa to temperatures as high as 140 °C.
Regarding Claim 37, modified O’Dwyer teaches the electrochemical device of claim 34, but is silent to teach the LIB operating normally without voltage instabilities when a compressive force of 200 N is applied to the LIB on a hotplate at about 100 °C.
While modified O’Dwyer does not explicitly teach the LIB operating normally without voltage instabilities when a compressive force of 200 N is applied to the LIB on a hotplate at about 100 °C, modified O’Dwyer teaches an electrochemical device wherein the cathode comprises comprising LiFePO4 (LFP) as an electrochemically active cathode material [Lewis, 0022] and lithium titanate (LTO) [O’Dwyer, 0030] as the anode material, which according to the instant specification, the cathode comprised LiFePO4, LFP, as the cathode material and the anode comprised LTO,[instant specification, page 5, line 14 & line 15],and the cathode material is printed to the first layer of housing, corresponding to a first substrate, and the anode material is printed to the second layer of housing, corresponding to a second substrate, and the non-solid electrolyte material, corresponding to the ionogel electrolyte of the claim, is deposited onto the surface of the cathode material layer and the anode material wherein the first and second housing layers are sealed together[O’Dwyer, 0080], as stated in the instant specification [instant specification, page 5, lines 14-20]. Therefore, the electrochemical device of modified O’Dwyer has the same components as the battery of the instant specification, and absence of a record to the contrary, it is expected the battery of modified O’Dwyer to have an LIB operating normally without voltage instabilities when a compressive force of 200 N is applied to the LIB on a hotplate at about 100 °C.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 is allowed.
The ionogel electrolyte ink of claim 15 is not taught nor suggest by the cited art of record. JP 2015187057 A, known as Morishita in this Office Action, is cited as of interest since it teaches a dispersion of ionic liquid boron nitride nanosheets and a solvent, but there is no indication in the reference the surface of each hBN nanoplatelet has oxidized carbonaceous residues following pyrolysis of stabilizing polymers by the liquid-phase exfoliation method. Liquid-Phase Exfoliation of Hexagonal Boron Nitride into Boron Nitride Nanosheets in Common Organic Solvents with Hyperbranched Polyethylene as Stabilizer is cited as to interest since it teaches the liquid-phase exfoliation of hexagonal boron nitride from bulk into the nanoplatelet, but there is no indication in the reference to pyrolysis of stabilizing polymer within the liquid-phase exfoliation method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIAN ALICE ODOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM 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, 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.
/LILIAN ALICE ODOM/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722