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 claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, and 10 in the reply filed on March 6th, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 6 recites a limitation of “The electrolyte material according to claim 1 wherein the flame retardant comprises any one or a combination of…triphenyl phosphate, phosphite, or phosphazene flame retardant materials.” Due to the phrasing, it is not immediately clear whether the claimed materials are triphenyl phosphate, triphenyl phosphite, and triphenyl phosphazene or triphenyl phosphite, a general class of phosphite-based flame retardant materials, and a general class of phosphazene flame retardant materials. The Examiner recommends that the Applicant make their intent clear because the difference in scope between those interpretations is extremely large. Furthermore, either or both of those interpretations will be applied in the analysis of prior art for rejections under USC 102 and/or USC 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (CN 10678512 B) and further in view of Munshi (US 6645675 B1). The combination of the two references will be referred to as modified Shi.
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 8, Shi discloses a core-shell structure with a flame retardant core [0010] and an organic shell layer coated on the outer surface of the flame retardant [0010] where the organic shell layer may comprise a polymer such as polymethyl methacrylate [0053]. Shi, however, fails to teach a polymer electrolyte, the melting temperature of the polymer electrolyte, and an ion-conducting polymer that comprises a lithium salt and a polymer electrolyte. Munshi is analogous art to Shi because both disclose materials that are used in lithium-ion batteries.
Munshi teaches that a solid polymer electrolyte suited for use in a lithium battery may be comprised of a base polymer material and a lithium salt (column 7, lines 26-32). Munshi teaches that “all solid state lithium-based cells employing this electrolyte use less lithium in the cell than conventional lithium ion cells, therefore reducing cost and increasing energy content” (column 7, lines 41-43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use Munshi’s solid polymer electrolyte in the shell of Shi’s material, transforming Shi’s material into an electrolyte material as well as increasing the energy content of the battery. Additionally, 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, Munshi teaches that the mass of the lithium salt is 1% – 25% of the mass of the electrolyte (as required by claim 6; column 7, lines 30-33), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1% - 20%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Munshi also teaches that their polymer materials are selected such that they have a temperature stability of up to at least 150 °C (column 16, lines 13-15), which may be interpreted as heaving a melting temperature of at least 150 °C. This overlaps with the claimed range of melting points of 150 °C – 250 °C recited within claim 8. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 3, Shi teaches that the shell layer of modified Shi’s electrolyte material may have a thickness between 0.01 µm – 1 µm [0044], which overlaps with the claimed range of 100 – 500 nm (0.1 µm – 0.5 µm). Shi also discloses that the total diameter of the structure may be between 0.1 µm to 5 µm [0044]. Assuming a shell thickness is 0.5 µm (an example thickness within the claimed range), the thickness of the core would be between 0.5 µm and 4.5 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 µm – 10 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 5, Shi teaches that some of the flame retardants used in modified Shi’s electrolyte material may be triphenyl phosphate, trimethyl phosphate, triethyl phosphate, tributyl phosphate, or tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) phosphite, or hexamethoxyphosphazene [0047].
Claims 1, 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao (CN 105218714 A) and further in view of Munshi.
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 8, Shao discloses a flame-retardant microcapsule. Their preferred embodiment of a core material is liquid heptafluoropropane [0009], but also disclose that the core material may generally be a flame retardant fire extinguishing agent [0011]. Shao continues to disclose that the shell is comprised of a polymethacrylate polymer [0027]. Shao fails to teach an electrolyte material, the claimed range of melting points, or that the shell is comprised of an ion-conducting polymer comprised of a lithium salt and a polymer electrolyte. Munshi is analogous art to Shao because both teach materials that are used in lithium secondary batteries.
Munshi teaches that a solid polymer electrolyte suited for use in a lithium battery may be comprised of a base polymer material and a lithium salt (column 7, lines 26-32). Munshi teaches that “all solid state lithium-based cells employing this electrolyte use less lithium in the cell than conventional lithium ion cells, therefore reducing cost and increasing energy content” (column 7, lines 41-43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use Munshi’s solid polymer electrolyte in the shell of Shao’s material, transforming Shao’s material into an electrolyte material as well as increasing the energy content of the battery. Additionally, 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, Munshi teaches that the mass of the lithium salt is 1% – 25% of the mass of the electrolyte (as required by claim 6; column 7, lines 30-33), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1% - 20%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Munshi also teaches that their polymer materials are selected such that they have a temperature stability of up to at least 150 °C (column 16, lines 13-15), which may be interpreted as heaving a melting temperature of at least 150 °C. This overlaps with the claimed range of melting points of 150 °C – 250 °C recited within claim 8. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 10, Shao teaches in their “Example 1” that the core material (the flame retardant) is prepared [0034] and then an emulsifier is added [0035]. Then the methyl methacrylate monomers and a polymeric initiator are added [0036]. Absent an objective showing to the contrary, it is reasonable to conclude that the emulsifier is deposited upon the particles and/or exists between the particles and the polymeric shell once said shell has been formed.
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (CN 110215642 A) and further in view of Munshi. The combination of the two references will be referred to as modified Wu.
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 8, Wu discloses a core-shell structure comprised of a flame retardant core and an outer shell comprising a thermal responsive polymer [0009] and a conductive polymer [0013]. However, Wu fails to teach how the conductive polymer may comprise a lithium salt and a polymer electrolyte and the claimed range of melting points of the polymer electrolyte. Munshi is analogous art to Wu because both discuss materials that may be used in lithium secondary batteries.
Munshi teaches that a solid polymer electrolyte suited for use in a lithium battery may be comprised of a base polymer material and a lithium salt (column 7, lines 26-32). Munshi teaches that “all solid state lithium-based cells employing this electrolyte use less lithium in the cell than conventional lithium ion cells, therefore reducing cost and increasing energy content” (column 7, lines 41-43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use Munshi’s solid polymer electrolyte in the shell of Wu’s material, transforming Wu’s material into an electrolyte material as well as increasing the energy content of the battery. Additionally, 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, Munshi teaches that the mass of the lithium salt is 1% – 25% of the mass of the electrolyte (as required by claim 6; column 7, lines 30-33), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1% - 20%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Munshi also teaches that their polymer materials are selected such that they have a temperature stability of up to at least 150 °C (column 16, lines 13-15), which may be interpreted as heaving a melting temperature of at least 150 °C. This overlaps with the claimed range of 150 °C – 250 °C recited within claim 8. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 5, Wu discloses that the flame retardant core may be comprised of trimethyl phosphate, triethyl phosphate, or tributyl phosphate [0015].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Wu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 100853615 B). Modified Wu fails to teach the mass percent of the flame retardant in their electrolyte material. Kim is analogous art to modified Wu because both teach materials that are used in lithium ion batteries. Kim teaches that “triphenyl phosphate be added in an amount of 0.1 to 20 weight% relative to the electrolyte. If the amount of triphenyl phosphate is less than 0.1 weight%, it cannot prevent thermal runaway due to overcharging, and if it exceeds 20 weight%, it is undesirable as it may degrade battery performance” (Kim, page 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use a flame retardant in an electrolyte material with the mass proportion based on the teachings of Kim in order to ensure proper performance of the battery.
Furthermore, this range overlaps with the claimed range of 5-20%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cotton (US 2009/0162754 A1) discloses a solid polymer electrolyte comprised of a lithium salt and two polymer electrolytes, many of which are listed as preferable embodiments in claim 8.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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.
/R.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722