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
Claim 1 is amended. Claim 5 is canceled. Claims 1-4 & 6-24 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1-4 & 6-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schlenoff (US 2012/0148522 A1).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-18 & 22, Schlenoff teaches a composition comprising inorganic salt particles comprising a metal ion having a charge of at least +1 such as lithium and an anion having a charge of at least -1 such as fluorine ([0103]-[0104]); and a complex with a net charge of zero and comprising a first species including a positively charged polymer such as polydiallyldimethylammonium (PDDA) and a second species including a negatively charged polymer such as 2-acrylamido-2-methyl-1-propane sulfonate (PAMPS), wherein the first charged polymer comprises one or more positively charged monomer repeat units in an amount of 20% by mole to 90% by mole and the second charged polymer comprises one or more negatively charged monomer repeat units in an amount of 20% by mole to 80% by mole ([0047], [0049], [0051]-[0054]).
Regarding claim 19-20, Schlenoff teaches the first charged polymer and the second charged polymer each being an amphiphilic polymer comprising one or more positively charged monomer repeat units such as diallyldimethylammonium and one or more negatively charged monomer repeat units such as styrenesulfonate, wherein the amphiphilic polymer has a net charge of zero ([0049]).
Regarding claim 21, Schlenoff teaches the first charged polymer and the second charged polymer being covalently cross-linked ([0098]-[0101]).
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.
Claims 1-4 & 6-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeLongchamps (US 2003/0228523 A1) in view of Savoie (US 2017/0275399 A1).
Regarding claims 1-4 & 6-24, DeLongchamps teaches a battery comprising a solid electrolyte film composition including an inorganic salt such as a lithium hexafluorophosphate comprising a metal ion having a charge of at least +1 and an anion having a charge of at least -1; and a complex having a net charge of near zero and comprising a first charged polymer (i.e polycation) comprising one or more positively charged monomer repeat units such as poly(diallyldimethylammonium) and poly(ethyleneimine) and a second charged polymer (i.e polyanion) comprising one or more negatively charged monomer repeat units such as 2-acrylamido-2-methyl-1-propane sulfonate or acrylate which can be covalently crosslinked’ and wherein the first charged polymer comprises one or more charged monomer repeat units in an amount of 20% to 90% by mole and the second charged polymer comprises one or more charged monomer repeat units in an amount of 20% to 80% by mole ([0005], [0013]-[0014], [0016]-[0017], [0019] & [0024]-[0025]). DeLongchamps is silent as to the anion of the inorganic salt being a halide. However, one of ordinary skill in the art readily understands that lithium halides such as LiF and LiPF6 disclosed in DeLongchamps are well known suitable lithium salts for solid polymer electrolytes of lithium batteries as taught by Savoie ([0222]-[0223]). “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”. See MPEP 2144.07. Furthermore, batteries comprising Li-metal anodes and metal oxide cathodes are well-known within the art as taught by Savoie ([0249]-[0252]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4 & 6-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. As presently claimed, the subject matter of claims 1-4 & 6-22 is found to be anticipated by Schlenoff with claims 1-4 & 6-24 found to be obvious over the combined teachings of DeLongchamps and Savoie as shown in the above updated rejection.
Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 1-4 & 6-24 stand rejected.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, BARBARA GILLIAM can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights