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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 09/25/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 27-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/25/2025.
Status of the Claims
The preliminary amendment submitted 01/05/2023 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 17-32 are pending. Claims 1-16 are cancelled. Claims 17-32 are new. Claims 27-32 are withdrawn. Claims 17-26 are examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17-26 are 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 17 recites the limitation "the electrolyte solvents" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 18-26 depend from claim 17 and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the faces of the membrane" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 18-26 depend from claim 17 and are rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites Li2+2xZn1-xGeO4, however, the variable x is not defined in the claim. This renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 26, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of this Office action, the limitations following “such as” will be treated as non-limiting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 17, 21, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0079485 A1 (“Choi”).
Regarding claim 17, Choi discloses a composite membrane 10, 20, 30, 40 (“hybrid separating membrane”) for electrochemical cells (Abstract; Figs. 1-4; [0082]). The composite membrane comprises a polymer layer 12, 22, 32, 42 (“organic phase”) and ion conductive inorganic particles 11, 21, 31, 41 (“inorganic phase”), wherein the ion conductive inorganic particles are dispersed within the polymer layer.
The polymer of the polymer layer has gas barrier properties ([0060]-[0061], [0066], [0080]). Therefore, it is deemed to be a non-porous polymer matrix. Examples of the polymer include polyolefins (e.g. polyethylene and polypropylene), halogenated polymers (e.g. polytetrafluoroethylene), polyurethane, styrene homopolymers and copolymers (e.g. polystyrene, styrene-butadiene rubber, etc.), and vinyl polymers (e.g. polyvinyl chloride). Given the composition, it is deemed that the polymer is inherently impermeable to electrolyte solvents.
The ion conductive inorganic particles consist of a set of particles of at least one ion conductive inorganic material ([0072]-[0074]).
The ion conductive inorganic particles are dispersed within the polymer matrix (Figs. 1-4).
The polymer matrix is provided in the form of a film having a thickness (Figs. 1-4; [0054]-[0055], [0058], [0071], [0091]).
The ion conductive inorganic particles may have various shapes, such as one or more selected from a cube, elliptical, rod, square, and a bar shape ([0062]). Each of these shapes has a smallest dimension and a largest dimension. Figs. 1-3 show the ion conductive inorganic particles extending beyond at least one of the top and bottom surfaces of the polymer layer. Fig. 4 shows the ion conductive inorganic particles being coplanar with the top and bottom surfaces of the polymer layer. Therefore, the limitation “at least one largest dimension being greater than or equal to the thickness of the polymer matrix” is met.
The two faces of the membrane are ionically connected to one another by means of a single particle of inorganic material (Figs. 1-4; [0051], [0068], [0076]-[0077], [0125]-[0126]).
Regarding claim 21, Choi discloses the membrane of claim 17. Choi further discloses the ion conductive inorganic particles comprise lithium ion conducting ceramics ([0073]-[0074]).
Regarding claim 23, Choi discloses the membrane of claim 17. Choi discloses the ion conductive inorganic particles have a rod shape or a bar shape ([0062]).
Regarding claim 24, Choi discloses the membrane of claim 17. Choi discloses examples of the polymer include polyolefins (e.g. polyethylene and polypropylene), halogenated polymers (e.g. polytetrafluoroethylene), polyurethane, styrene homopolymers and copolymers (e.g. polystyrene, styrene-butadiene rubber, etc.), and vinyl polymers (e.g. polyvinyl chloride).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 18-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0079485 A1 (“Choi”).
Regarding claim 18, Choi discloses the membrane of claim 17. Choi further discloses a thickness of the composite membrane may be in a range of about 10 µm to about 200 µm ([0091]). The thickness of the membrane would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the thickness disclosed by Choi overlaps the thickness as claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Furthermore, “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19, Choi discloses the membrane of claim 17. Choi discloses the ion conductive inorganic particles have a rod shape or a bar shape ([0062]). As the ion conductive inorganic particles have the shape of single-body particle ([0051], [0068], [0076]-[0077], [0125]-[0126]) that extends from one face of the membrane to the other (Figs. 1-4), the rod or bar shaped ion conductive inorganic particles would be oriented substantially or partially along the thickness direction of the membrane to allow for ionic conduction from one face of the membrane to the other face of the membrane. The rods or bars in general have a smaller diameter (smallest dimension) and a longer length (largest dimension). The largest dimension is oriented with the thickness of the membrane, which is in a range of about 10 µm to about 200 µm ([0091]). Therefore, have a smallest dimension less than that of the membrane. While Choi is silent regarding the smallest dimension of the inorganic particles, given the facts above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an appropriate smallest dimension. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 20, Choi discloses the membrane of claim 17. Choi does not expressly disclose the particles of the inorganic material are oriented within the polymer matrix such that the axis passing through their at least one largest dimension is substantially perpendicular to the thickness of said membrane. However, Choi discloses the ion conductive inorganic particles may have various shapes, such as one or more selected from a cube, elliptical, rod, square, and a bar shape ([0062]). Choi further discloses the ion conductive inorganic particles have the shape of single-body particle ([0051], [0068], [0076]-[0077], [0125]-[0126]) that extends from one face of the membrane to the other (Figs. 1-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to orient the particles of the inorganic material as claimed to allow for the ionic conduction from one face of the membrane to the other.
Regarding claim 22, Choi discloses the membrane of claim 21. Choi further discloses the ion conductive inorganic particles comprise LixAlyTiz(PO4)3, wherein 0≤x≤2, 0≤y≤1, 0≤z≤3, for example Li1.4Ti1.6Al0.4P3O12 (LTAP). While the composition of Li1.4Ti1.6Al0.4P3O12 is just outside the claimed composition Li1.3Ti1.7Al0.3(PO4)3 (by molar amounts of 0.1 for Li, Al, and Ti), the claimed composition would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the composition in Choi is close and one would have expected the compositions to have the same properties in view of the broader disclosure of Choi (LixAlyTiz(PO4)3, wherein 0≤x≤2, 0≤y≤1, 0≤z≤3). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205-206 (CCPA 1946); In re Becket, 88 F.2d 684 (CCPA 1937); In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931, 934, 24 USPQ 52, 55 (CCPA 1934); In re Lilienfeld, 67 F.2d 920, 924, 20 USPQ 53, 57 (CCPA 1933); K-Swiss Inc. v. Glide N Lock GmbH, 567 Fed. App'x 906 (Fed. Cir. 2014); In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018); and MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0079485 A1 (“Choi”) in view of US 2016/0118651 A1 (“Kovalev”).
Regarding claims 25-26, Choi discloses the membrane of claim 17. Choi does not expressly disclose the non-porous polymer matrix is ionically conductive and in that the polymer matrix comprises at least one ionically conductive polymer [claim 25] or the membrane contains one or more salt(s) such as a lithium salt or a sodium salt and/or one or several organic solvent(s).
Kovalev discloses a composite layer 30 comprising a polymeric material 40 (e.g., a polymer layer) and a plurality of particles 50 ([0023]). The particles are ionically conductive (e.g., substantially conductive to lithium ions) to allow transport of ions across the composite layer ([0024]). Any suitable polymeric material can be included in a composite layer ([0050]). Those of ordinary skill in the art can choose suitable polymeric materials based on their mechanical and/or electronic properties (e.g., ionic and/or electronic conductivity), and/or can modify such polymeric materials to be ionically conducting (e.g., conductive towards single ions) and/or electronically non-conducting based on knowledge in the art ([0055]). The polymeric material may be non-ionically conductive or ionically conductive and may further comprise lithium salts to enhance ionic conductivity ([0055]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose an ionically conductive polymer for the polymer matrix as it amounts to choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success in view of the disclosure of Kovalev. It would also have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include lithium salts in the polymer matrix to enhance ionic conductivity as taught by Kovalev.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 4,183,988 discloses a solid ion-conductive electrolyte is described which comprises a polymer film, a plurality of solid polycrystalline ion-conductive particles embedded therein, and the particles exposed at both opposite surfaces of the film (Abstract).
US 2014/0065513 A1 discloses an ion-conducting composite electrolyte is provided comprising path-engineered ion-conducting ceramic electrolyte particles and a solid polymeric matrix (Abstract).
US 2015/0255767 A1 discloses a membrane that is: (i) impermeable to oxygen, and (ii) insoluble in at least one polar solvent; and ion conducting particles in the membrane. At least some of the particles extend from a first side of the membrane to an opposed second side of the membrane (Abstract).
US 2017/0005367 A1 discloses electrolyte compositions that include both organic and inorganic constituent components and which are suitable for use in rechargeable batteries (Abstract).
US 2020/0112050 A1 discloses a hybrid electrolyte comprising a polymeric material layer disposed on an exterior surface of a solid-state electrolyte. The solid-state electrolyte comprises an inorganic SSE having fibers or strands, which may be aligned (Abstract).
US 2019/0326574 A1 discloses a lithium ion-conducting membrane comprising ion-conducting elements 12 at least a portion of which are surrounded a matrix polymer 14. The ion-conducting elements may be ceramic lithium ion conductors ([0028]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Scott Carrico whose telephone number is (571)270-5504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:15AM-5:45PM Eastern.
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.
Robert Scott Carrico
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/Robert S Carrico/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727