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 . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejection of claims 1, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (US 2020/0067075 A1), hereinafter “Choi,” is withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of claims 2, 4, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Choi is withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 1 and canceled claim 13.
The rejection of claims 3, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Cola et al. (US 2017/0190579 A1), hereinafter “Cola,” is withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 1.
The rejection of claims 7 8, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Anil et al. (IN 2011MU02581 A), hereinafter “Anil,” is withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 1.
The rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Ishii (US 2019/0334166 A1) is withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 1.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2021/0111407 A1), hereinafter “Li.”
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses an electrode comprising:
a current collector (¶ [0025])
a lithium layer formed on the current collector (¶ (0025] & [0034]; Fig. 1, reference no. 210); and
a thiophene polymer layer formed on the lithium layer comprising a thiophene polymer with an ether functional group, in this case an organosulfur protective layer maybe formed on the lithium metal layer (¶ [0049]) that may comprise poly(crown ether thiophene) (¶ [0055]).
Choi does not disclose that the thickness of the thiophene polymer layer is 400 nm to 10 μm. However, Li teaches an electrode comprising a lithium metal active material (¶ [0071], Figs 3A-3C, ref. no. 72) with a polymer coating layer (¶ [0072], Figs. 3A-3C, ref. no. 76) that is 500 nm to 50 μm thick (¶ [0073]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing a protective coating of such a thickness would have protected the lithium metal electrode material and reduced side reactions with electrolyte (see ¶ [0086]), thereby facilitating improved cycle life and safety despite other potential drawbacks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the thickness of the thiophene polymer layer to be 400 nm to 10 μm in order to have facilitated improved cycle life and safety.
Regarding claim 2, Choi further teaches that the lithium layer’s thickness is in a range of 10 μm to 50 μm, in this case the lithium metal layer may have a thickness of 1 μm to 500 μm, preferably 10 μm to 350 μm, and more preferably 50 μm to 200 μm (¶ [0030]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that making the lithium layer to be 10 μm to 50 μm thick would have yielded a functional electrode. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the lithium layer’s thickness to be 10 μm to 50 μm in order to have yielded a functional electrode.
Regarding claim 4, Choi is silent as to the ratio of the mole number of the functional group to that of the number of sulfur atoms. However, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the changes to the polymer imparted by the addition of functional groups not only depends on the substances added to the polymer chain but also the relative amounts of the substances added. One having ordinary skill in the art would have further understood to select the appropriate loadings of each functional group in order to have arrived at a polymer with the desired characteristics, such as electron conductivity, flowability, melting point, and others, which would in turn improve the polymeric coating’s functionality and ease of electrode assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the mole number ratio of the functional group to that of the sulfur atoms (M/S) to be 0.1 to 10 in order to have improved the polymeric coating’s functionality and ease of electrode assembly.
Regarding claim 12, Choi further discloses that the thiophene polymer has an oxidation potential in a range of 1.5 V to 5 V, in this case the poly(crown ether thiophene) (¶ [0055]) would inherently possess this property. See M.P.E.P. § 2112.
Regarding claim 14, Choi discloses an electrode manufacturing method comprising:
forming a thiophene polymer layer on a laminate comprising a current collector (¶ [0025]) and a lithium layer (¶ [0025] & [0034]; Fig. 1, reference no. 210), in this case an organosulfur protective layer maybe formed on the lithium metal layer (¶ [0049]) that may comprise poly(crown ether thiophene) (¶ [0055]);
wherein the thiophene polymer layer comprises a thiophene polymer having a first functional group, in this case the crown ether (¶ [0055]); and
wherein the first functional group is an ether group, in this case the crown ether (¶ [0055]).
Regarding claim 15, Choi further discloses that the thiophene polymer layer is formed by coating a coating composition on the lithium layer wherein the coating composition comprises the thiophene polymer, in this case the organosulfur layer may be formed by coating (¶ [0056]).
Regarding claim 18, Choi further discloses a secondary battery (¶ [0002]).
Regarding claim 19, Choi further discloses that the lithium layer comprises lithium (¶ [0025]).
Claims 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Choi and Li as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Cola.
Regarding claim 3, Choi does not disclose the second functional group. However, Cola teaches functionalizing polythiophenes with alkyl groups (¶ [0112]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that adding such functional groups to polythiophene would adjust its characteristics, such as electron conductivity, flowability, melting point, and others, which would in turn improve the polymeric coating’s functionality and ease of electrode assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have added a second functional group such as an alkyl group in order to have improved the polymeric coating’s functionality and ease of electrode assembly.
Regarding claim 5, Choi discloses the first functional group, in this case the crown ether (¶ [0055]), but does not disclose the second functional group. However, Cola teaches functionalizing polythiophenes with alkyl groups (¶ [0112]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that adding such a second functional groups to polythiophene would adjust its characteristics, such as electron conductivity, flowability, melting point, and others, which would in turn improve the polymeric coating’s functionality and ease of electrode assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have added a second functional group such as an alkyl group in order to have improved the polymeric coating’s functionality and ease of electrode assembly.
Regarding claim 6, Choi does not disclose the second functional group. Cola teaches the second functional group as set forth in the rejection of claim 5, above, but does not teach the mole number ratio of the first functional group to the second functional group. However, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the changes to the polymer imparted by the addition of functional groups not only depends on the substances added to the polymer chain but also the relative amounts of the substances added. One having ordinary skill in the art would have further understood to select the appropriate loadings of each functional group in order to have arrived at a polymer with the desired characteristics, such as electron conductivity, flowability, melting point, and others, which would in turn improve the polymeric coating’s functionality and ease of electrode assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the mole number ratio of the first functional group to the second functional group (M1/M2) to be 0.5 to 10 in order to have improved the polymeric coating’s functionality and ease of electrode assembly.
Claims 7, 8, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Choi and Li as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Anil.
Regarding claim 7, Choi does not specify that the thiophene polymer is represented by formula 2. However, Anil teaches a conductive polymeric thin film comprising a polythiophene conforming with formula 2, in this case formula I where X is -CH2C(RR’)CH2-, R is -CH2O(CH2)A-B, A is 0 to 10, B is a hydrogen or a C1-C5 linear or branched alkyl or aryl group optionally substituted by one, or more groups selected from amines, carboxylic acids, alcohols, ethers, sulfonic acids, thiols or amides, and R’ is R as defined above or hydrogen or C1-C3 linear or branched alkyl group or aryl group optionally substituted by one or more groups selected from aryl, propargyl or azide (pp. 5-6). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting the polythiophene of Anil for that of Choi would have yielded the predictable result of providing a conductive polymer layer to the electrode. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted the polythiophene of Anil for the polythiophene of Choi in order to yield the predictable result of providing a conductive polymer layer to the electrode.
Regarding claim 8, Choi does not specify that the thiophene polymer is represented by formula 2. However, Anil teaches the polythiophene according to formula 2 as set forth in the rejection of claim 7, above, and further teaches that both L3 and L4 are alkylene groups and the sum of the carbon atoms of both groups is 2, in this case each CH2 in X respectively corresponds to L3 and L4 (pp. 5-6). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting the polythiophene of Anil for that of Choi would have yielded the predictable result of providing a conductive polymer layer to the electrode. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted the polythiophene of Anil for the polythiophene of Choi in order to yield the predictable result of providing a conductive polymer layer to the electrode.
Regarding claim 16, Choi does not disclose that the thiophene polymer layer is formed by polymerizing the thiophene monomer on the lithium layer. However, Anil teaches polymerizing the thiophene monomer in-situ on a metal substrate (pp. 5-6). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that so forming the thiophene polymer layer on the metal lithium would have allowed the polymer layer’s thickness to be adjusted as well as ensured adequate substrate coating (see p. 6), thereby facilitating improved electrode operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have formed the thiophene polymer layer by polymerizing the thiophene monomer on the lithium layer in order to have facilitated improved electrode operation.
Regarding claim 17, Choi does not specify that the thiophene polymer is represented by formula 2. However, Anil teaches a conductive polymeric thin film comprising a polythiophene conforming with formula 2, in this case formula I where X is -CH2C(RR’)CH2-, R is -CH2O(CH2)A-B, A is 0 to 10, B is a hydrogen or a C1-C5 linear or branched alkyl or aryl group optionally substituted by one, or more groups selected from amines, carboxylic acids, alcohols, ethers, sulfonic acids, thiols or amides, and R’ is R as defined above or hydrogen or C1-C3 linear or branched alkyl group or aryl group optionally substituted by one or more groups selected from aryl, propargyl or azide (pp. 5-6). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting the polythiophene of Anil for that of Choi would have yielded the predictable result of providing a conductive polymer layer to the electrode. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted the polythiophene of Anil for the polythiophene of Choi in order to yield the predictable result of providing a conductive polymer layer to the electrode.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Choi and Li as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Ishii.
Regarding claim 11, Choi is silent as to the thiophene polymer’s weight average molecular weight. However, Ishii teaches that polythiophene with a weight average molecular weight of 1,000 to 100,000 g/mol are suitable for use in electrodes (¶ [0024]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that providing a polythiophene with a weight average molecular weight of 500 to 100,000 g/mol would yield the predictable result of a functional electrode. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the polythiophene’s weight average molecular weight to have been 500 to 100,000 g/mol in order to have yielded the predictable result of a functional electrode.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the cited prior art references disclose that the thiophene polymer layer includes polymerized units according to both formula 3 and formula 4. Furthermore, no other prior art reference could be found that fairly teaches or suggests this limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 and 14-19 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729