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 .
Summary
This is an initial Office Action for application 18/108,863, originally filed February 13, 2023. Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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 1-9 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 1 recites “high steric hindrance monomer” in line 2. It is unclear in light of the specifications what is meant by “high” when the term is used to modify the phrase “steric hindrance.”
Claim 1 recites “steric hindrance monomer” in line 2. It is unclear in light of the specifications what is meant by “steric hindrance monomer.”
Claim 1 also recites “fast ionic conductors” in line 1. It is unclear in light of the specifications what is meant by the term “fast” when used to modify the phrase “ionic conductors.”
Claims 2-9 are dependent on claim 1, therefore they are also indefinite.
Claim 2 recites “high steric hindrance monomer” in line 2. It is unclear in light of the specifications what is meant by “high” when the term is used to modify the phrase “steric hindrance.”
Claim 2 recites “steric hindrance monomer” in line 2. It is unclear in light of the specifications what is meant by “steric hindrance monomer.”
Claim 3 recites “high steric hindrance monomer” in line 2. It is unclear in light of the specifications what is meant by “high” when the term is used to modify the phrase “steric hindrance.”
Claim 3 recites “steric hindrance monomer” in line 2. It is unclear in light of the specifications what is meant by “steric hindrance monomer.”
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the cathode electrode sheet” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because claim 1 does not recite a cathode electrode sheet.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the anode electrode sheet” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because claim 1 does not recite an anode electrode sheet.
Claims 2-9 recite “fast ionic conductors” in line 1. It is unclear in light of the specifications what is meant by the term “fast” when used to modify the phrase “ionic conductors.”
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lv et al (CN 112018438 A) in view of Song et al (US 11302961 B1) and Huang et al (CN 114039088 A).
Regarding claim 1, Lv teaches a method for preparing fast ionic conductors based on in-situ polymerization, comprising:
(Machine translation: [0028] and [0049] teach the formation of a gel electrolyte with high electric and electrolyte conductivity; [0028] discloses that the lithium-ion battery has high rate performance, i.e., is fast; therefore, the gel electrolyte is a fast ionic conductor; [0046] discloses that the process of forming the gel electrolyte utilizes in-situ polymerization),
step 1, mixing high steric hindrance monomer, crosslinker, and lithium salt, mixing evenly, obtaining a mixed solution A;
([0012] teaches a gel electrolyte precursor that includes a gel skeleton monomer, a cross-linking agent, and a lithium salt. [0127] discloses that the gel electrolyte formation is very uniform, which is an implicit teaching that the precursor components are also uniformly, i.e. evenly, mixed. Examples of the monomer disclosed in [0018] are vinylene carbonate, vinyl ethylene carbonate, and maleic anhydride, whose structure, including at least one carbonyl functional group extending from the cyclic structure, poses steric hindrance and therefore function as high steric hindrance monomers);
step 2, mixing initiator and plasticizer and uniformly mixing to obtain a mixed solution B;
([0039] discloses an electrolyte as a plasticizer that is mixed with the gel electrolyte precursor, i.e. solution A, to obtain the gel electrolyte; the electrolyte can be a solvent of ethylene carbonate (EC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC) and ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) with salt lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6); [0017] indicates that addition of the gel precursor to the liquid electrolyte fixes the electrolyte in the battery and causes the electrolyte to be more solid-like, and which also suggests that the liquid electrolyte provides liquid-like properties; therefore the liquid electrolyte acts as a plasticizer; [0127] discloses the gel electrolyte formation is very uniform, which is an implicit teaching that the precursor components such as the components of mixed solution B are also uniformly, i.e. evenly, mixed.
Lv teaches an initiator such as azobisisobutyronitrile ([0111]) can be used but does not specify that it is mixed in step 2 with the plasticizer.)
step 3, mixing the mixed solution A obtained from step 1 with the mixed solution B obtained from step 2, and uniformly stirring to obtain a polymerization precursor solution;
(Lv teaches in [0100] mixing a gel electrolyte precursor, corresponding to the claimed mixed solution A, and an electrolyte, corresponding to the claimed mixed solution B, to obtain a mixed solution corresponding to the claimed polymerization precursor solution; [0127] discloses that the gel electrolyte formation is very uniform, which is an implicit teaching that mixed solutions A and B are uniformly mixed, or stirred, together);
and step 4, injecting the polymerization precursor solution prepared in step 3 into a cell, followed by in-situ polymerization at 30 - 80°C for 0.5 hours (h) - 48 h to obtain a solid-state polymer fast ionic conductor.
(Lv also teaches in [0043] the in-situ polymerization gelation temperature is 70-75°C, such as 71°C, 72°C, 73°C or 74°C), which overlaps with the claimed range. [0062] also teaches that when the polymerization temperature is too low, the gelation process is prolonged, which will affect the engineering time and engineering capacity, and that when the polymerization temperature is too high, the polymerization reaction is too intense and the polymerization cannot be fully completed, with the result that gel may not be formed, and a good gel system cannot be formed, which will be detrimental to battery safety. Therefore, the polymerization gelation temperature is a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adjusted the polymerization gelation temperature to the claimed range to optimize the processing time of gelation and the safety of the gel system. [0065] teaches the in-situ polymerization time is 16-32 h, which also overlaps with the claimed range. The resulting gel electrolyte is a solid-state polymer fast ionic conductor because it is made of a polymerized monomer, is fixed according to [0017] and thus does not flow like a liquid, and is a fast ionic conductor, because [0028] and [0049] teach the formation of a gel electrolyte with high electric and electrolyte conductivity and [0028] discloses that the lithium-ion battery has high rate performance, i.e., is fast.)
Lv does not teach the parts by mass of the high steric hindrance monomer, crosslinker, and lithium salt (step 1), the removal of water by molecular sieve (step 1), storage of the mixed solution A at 2-8 degree Celsius (step 1), nor discloses the order of addition of each of the high steric hindrance monomer, crosslinker, and lithium salt (step 1).
Although Lv teaches an initiator such as azobisisobutyronitrile ([0111]) is used to polymerize the monomer, Lv does not teach it as being mixed with the plasticizer (step 2), nor teaches the parts by mass of the initiator and the plasticizer, nor teaches the stirring time to form mixed solution B (step 2).
Lv also does not teach the porous skeleton film (step 4), nor teaches the amount of polymerization precursor solution added into the cell.
Regarding the claimed parts by mass of the high steric hindrance monomer, crosslinker, and lithium salt (step 1), Lv points out the relative amounts of monomer and crosslinker in molar percentages in [0035], and the molar ratio of the lithium salt to the volume of the monomer in [0036]. Additionally, [0215]-[0216] of Lv teaches that the range of each component in the gel electrolyte precursor affects the electrical performance and safety of the resulting batteries, therefore, the mass fraction of each is a result-effective variable and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use routine experimentation to adjust the parts by mass of monomer, cross-linking agent, and lithium salt of Lv’s method to optimize the electrical performance and safety of the resulting battery, and would have arrived at the claimed ranges of parts by mass of the monomer, cross-linking agent, and lithium salt.
In the same field of endeavor, Huang teaches using a molecular sieve for removing water from components of an electrolyte of a solid polymer electrolyte (n0059]), corresponding to the claimed limitation of step 1, so as to eliminate the influence of moisture to the battery performance. Given that Lv also teaches the need of battery materials to avoid absorbing moisture in the air ([0071]), a skilled artisan at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to use a molecular sieve within the modified method of Lv as a means for removing water from battery materials to eliminate the influence of moisture to the battery performance, because it is a suitable option as taught by Huang.
Analogous art Song teaches in Col 22 lines 18-21 that the order of addition of the solvents, lithium metal (salt), and the high steric hindrance monomer (step 1) is not particularly limited, wherein Song uses monomer to indicate interchangeable use of monomer and crosslinker (Col 18: lines 54-57). Thus, the order of mixing the monomer, crosslinker, and lithium salt of mixed solution A in the order claimed in step 1 is obvious in light of Song’s teaching. Furthermore, MPEP 2144.04 C teaches that selection of any order of performing process steps or of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results; see In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
Song also teaches that azo-initiators such as those taught by Lv to polymerize the monomers are reactive species that readily interact with available vinyl monomers and the like to trigger the polymerization reaction (Col 20: lines 20-22), and that the conditions for triggering polymerization using azo-initiators are known to be generally mild, i.e., temperatures of between about 40° C. to about 60° C (Col 20: lines 26-29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use routine experimentation to identify appropriate storage temperatures of precursor materials within the modified method of Lv, including that of mixed solution A of step 1, to be controlled below triggering temperatures to prevent or minimize reaction until polymerization is desired, and they would have been motivated to select storage temperatures below 40° C. to about 60° C. The range of below 40° C. to about 60° C overlaps with the claimed range of 2 to 8°C for storing mixed solution A. 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).
Regarding the claimed limitation of mixing the initiator with the plasticizer (step 2), Song’s teaching indicates that addition of the chemical initiator, in relation to the solvents, the lithium salt, and the monomer is not particularly limited (Col 22 lines 25-28), as long as a final solution of solvent(s), monomer(s), lithium salt (s) and chemical initiator(s) is obtained (Col 22 lines 28-30). Song also teaches (Col 19 lines 61-62) the chemical initiator for polymerization can be added to an organic solvent with a lithium salt added to one or more solvents, i.e. added to a plasticizer. Song discloses that in some embodiments, an unstable component of the solution is not added until just before use (Col 22: lines 44-47). Given that Song also teaches that azo-initiators such as those taught by Lv are reactive species that readily interact with available vinyl monomers and the like to trigger the polymerization reaction (Col 20: lines 20-22), a skilled artisan would have been motivated to separate the chemical initiator from the monomer and crosslinker of modified Lv’s method by mixing them in separate solutions to avoid premature polymerization until required for use, and also that the initiator could have been added to a plasticizer consisting of an organic solvent with lithium salt, as recited in claimed step 2.
Regarding the claimed parts by mass of the initiator and plasticizer (step 2), Lv points out the relative amount of initiator in molar percentages in [0035], and the mass ratio of the gel electrolyte precursor, which includes monomer, crosslinker, initiator, and lithium salt, to the plasticizer (electrolyte) in [0040] and [0217] as 0.1:9.9 to 9.9:1, and further teaches in [0217] that when such mass ratio is achieved, higher electrochemical performance and safety of the battery can be obtained. Paragraphs [0215] - [0216] also teach the range of each component in the gel electrolyte precursor, such as an initiator, affects the electrical performance and safety of the resulting batteries; therefore, the mass fraction of each is a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use routine experimentation to adjust the parts by mass of the initiator to optimize the electrical performance and safety of the resulting battery, and would have arrived at the claimed range of parts by mass of initiator. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also been motivated to use routine experimentation to adjust the mass of the electrolyte (i.e., plasticizer) according to the taught mass ratio to the gel electrolyte precursor in order to optimize the electrical performance and safety of the resulting battery, and would have arrived at the claimed range of parts by mass of plasticizer.
Song also teaches that a solution including a dissolved lithium salt and a chemical initiator can be stirred for 0.5 to 24 hours to provide an electrolyte precursor (Col 5: lines 39-44), which overlaps with the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have used routine experimentation within the modified method of Lv to optimize the mixing time to form the electrolyte precursor mixed solution B (step 2) and would have arrived at the claimed range. 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)
Regarding the porous skeleton film (step 4), Song teaches in Col 28 line 25 that a separator can be a porous material of polyethylene (PE) or polypropylene (PP). A film with solid material regions dispersed with pores reads on a skeleton structure; accordingly, a porous separator is a porous skeleton film. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Song’s separator within the modified method of Lv to separate the anode and cathode of the battery (Song: Col 28 lines 22-26) given that Song teaches it is a suitable option for lithium ion batteries (Col 3 lines 6-8), which correspond to the batteries taught by primary reference Lv (Lv: [0054]).
Regarding the amount of polymerization precursor solution added into the cell (step 4), Lv teaches in [0100] and [0126] mixing the polymerization precursor solution and injection of the mixed solution within a battery cell. Paragraph [0126] of Lv teaches an embodiment wherein the battery cell was injected with liquid (1.5 g/Ah), indicating that the amount of polymerization precursor solution corresponds on the battery’s energy storage capacity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used routine experimentation within the modified method of Lv to add a volume of the polymerization precursor solution in accordance with the energy storage capacity of the battery cell.
Regarding claim 2, the combination above teaches the method of claim 1, and Lv further teaches in [0018] the high steric hindrance monomer disclosed can be vinylene carbonate (corresponds to the claimed structure in top row, leftmost column of claim 2, and wherein R1 is H), which is a claimed species.
Regarding claim 3, the combination above teaches the method of claim 1, and Lv further teaches in [0018] the high steric hindrance monomer disclosed can be vinylene carbonate or maleic anhydride, and each is a claimed species.
Regarding claim 4, the combination above teaches the method of claim 1, and Lv further teaches in [0023] the crosslinker can be an acrylic crosslinker.
Regarding claim 5, the combination above teaches the method of claim 1, and Lv further teaches in [0027] the lithium salt can be at least one of lithium perchlorate, lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl imide), lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl imide), lithium bis(oxaloyl borate) (lithium oxalate borate) and lithium tetrafluoroborate, which are claimed species.
Regarding claim 6, the combination above teaches the method of claim 1, and Lv further teaches the initiator can be azobisisobutyronitrile, a claimed species.
Regarding claim 7, the combination above teaches the method of claim 1, and Lv further teaches ([0039]) the plasticizer can be a 1.15 mol/L lithium salt solution, with the solute being 1.15 mol/L lithium hexafluorophosphate, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.8 – 2 mol/L lithium salt solution. Lv further teaches in [0039] the solvent of the electrolyte can be a mixture of ethylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, and ethyl methyl carbonate, which overlap with the claimed species.
Regarding claim 8, the combination above teaches the method of claim 1, and Lv further teaches in [0083] the cell in step 4 can be obtained by laminating a cathode electrode sheet and an anode electrode sheet, then injecting liquid, standing at 40-50°C, then forming to obtain the battery with the polymer electrolyte. Lv also teaches an aluminum-plastic film can be used to package the electrode components to avoid absorbing moisture in the air ([0071]); therefore, it is an implicit teaching that the laminated electrode sheets are encapsulated with an aluminum-plastic film.
Within the combination, the separator layer (i.e., the porous skeleton) is taught by Song in Col 28 lines 22-26to be between the cathode and the anode, as previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of step 4, claim 1. Therefore, the order of battery components in the battery assembly of the modified method of Lv would have been the cathode electrode sheet, a porous skeleton film, and an anode electrode sheet in sequence, and the porous skeleton film between the cathode electrode sheet and the anode electrode sheet would have also been encapsulated with the aluminum-plastic film, as claimed.
Regarding claim 9, the combination above teaches the method of claim 1, and Lv further teaches in [0054] the cathode electrode sheet can be lithium nickel oxide (lithium nickelate) and nickel cobalt manganese ternary cathode as an active substance and that the anode electrode sheet can be graphite, silicon carbon anode, or lithium metal systems (i.e., lithium metal alloy) as an active substance. As previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 1, Song teaches in Col 28 line 25 that a separator can be a porous polyethylene or porous polypropylene film.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIGI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2017. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 6.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/GIGI LEE LIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 09/19/2025