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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para. 172 recites “membrane 606”, but should recite “membrane 604” to correct the typo in the reference character;
Para. 199 recites “method 100”, but should recite “method 1000” to correct the typo in the reference character.
Appropriate correction is required.
Furthermore, the abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes the implied phraseology “The presently disclosed concepts relate to” (MPEP § 608.01(b)(I)(C)). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 line 2 recites “LiCL”, but should recite “LiCl” to correct the typo;
Claim 14 line 3 recites “CNO”, which is not a commonly understood acronym in the art, and this acronym is not defined elsewhere in the claims, claim 14 should be amended to recite e.g., “carbon nano onions (CNO)” to improve the clarity of the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein migration of a predetermined alkali metal ion through an ion-selective solid electrolyte membrane is driven by a current across the anode and the cathode”. It is unclear, in light of the specification, whether this limitation is intended to positively require an ion-selective solid electrolyte membrane, or if this limitation is intended to be an optional limitation that only limits how the system operates if an ion-selective solid electrolyte is present.
Specifically, the recitation “migration of a predetermined alkali metal ion through an ion-selective solid electrolyte membrane is driven by a current across the anode and the cathode” is a functional recitation i.e., it limits how the system functions, but it does not explicitly limit the system to any particular structure, which makes it unclear whether the “ion-selective solid electrolyte membrane” is required by the claim.
Claim 1 is therefore indefinite.
Examiner recommends amending claim 1 to recite “an ion-selective membrane” as a discrete component.
Regarding claims 2-20, claims 2-20 depend from claim 1, and therefore incorporate the indefinite language of claim 1. Claims 2-20 are therefore indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Diaz (WO 2022/133458 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Diaz teaches an alkali metal salt precipitation system (title), comprising:
an anode (“anode 118” p. 7 line 27 – p. 8 line 3 and Fig. 1);
a cathode (“cathode 122” Id.), wherein
the anode is configured for oxidation and the cathode is configured for reduction (by definition, an anode is an electrode configured for oxidation and a cathode is an electrode configured for reduction), and wherein
migration of a predetermined alkali metal ion through an ion-selective solid electrolyte membrane is driven by a current across the anode and the cathode (“second membrane 132 may be formulated and configured to facilitate selective transport of one or more metal cations from the center chamber 124 to the cathode chamber 120” p. 9 lines 19-33 and Fig. 1), wherein the ion-selective solid electrolyte membrane is selectively permeable to the predetermined alkali metal ion (“the second membrane 132 is configured to facilitate selective transfer of lithium cations” Id.);
at least one active material (“anode 118 comprises a coating of iridium oxide” p. 9 lines 2-10 or “cathode 122 comprises a coating of iridium oxide” p. 10 lines 1-8);
a precursor solution comprising the predetermined metal ion (“solution 108 including dissolved lithium” p. 7 lines 3-9 and Fig. 1), wherein the precursor solution is at a first solubility of an alkali metal salt (as the precursor solution comprises lithium salts, it is by definition at a first solubility of an alkali metal salt); and
a second solution comprising the predetermined metal ion (“catholyte 134 may include cations (e.g., lithium)” p. 10 lines 9-14 and Fig. 1), wherein the second solution is at a second solubility of the alkali metal salt which causes the migrated predetermined metal ion to precipitate (“The lithium ions transferred to the catholyte may react with the bicarbonate ions and hydroxide ions to form lithium carbonate, which may be insoluble in the catholyte.” p. 5 line 16 – p. 6 line 14, Fig. 1, and see p. 11 lines 11-29).
Regarding claim 2, Diaz further teaches the precursor solution includes LiCl (“the solution 108 … may include chloride ions.” p. 9 lines 14-18).
Regarding claim 3, as currently drafted, claim 3 further limits claim 2 only when the precursor solution includes LiOH i.e., it is an optional limitation. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the scope of a claim is not limited by features that are optional. In the instant case, Diaz teaches the precursor solution includes LiCl, rather than LiOH, and is thus not further limited by the limitation “the LiOH is insoluble in the second solution”.
Regarding claim 4, Diaz anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Diaz further teaches the first solubility is higher than the second solubility (“The lithium ions transferred to the catholyte may react with the bicarbonate ions and hydroxide ions to form lithium carbonate, which may be insoluble in the catholyte.” p. 5 line 16 – p. 6 line 14, Fig. 1; as the lithium ions are solubilized in the first solution and precipitate in the second solution, the first solubility is necessarily higher than the second solubility).
Regarding claim 5, Diaz anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Diaz further teaches the precursor solution includes a buffer (“The leachate feed solution 103 and the leachate solution 104 may include, for example, an acid … the acid may include … gluconic acid,” p. 6 lines 22-29 and Fig. 1, and see p. 7 lines 3-9, note that gluconic acid is a buffering acid).
Regarding claim 8, Diaz anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Diaz further teaches the migrated predetermined metal ion is Li+ (see e.g., title).
Regarding claim 13, Diaz anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Diaz further teaches the precursor solution includes an electroactive solute (“solution 108 includes one or more metals in addition to lithium (such as one or more of dissolved manganese, nickel, and cobalt), the one or more metals may be deposited on the surface of the anode 118 during use and operation…” p. 8 lines 29-33 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Diaz anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Diaz further teaches the cathode and the anode each include an electronically conductive substrate made of at least one of: graphite, Pt, Ti, or stainless steel (“anode 118 may include one or more of carbon (e.g., graphite, such as graphite foil), platinum, nickel, stainless steel, titanium,” p. 9 lines 2-10 and “cathode 122 may include, for example, one or more of platinum, nickel ( e.g., a nickel mesh), a gold plated material, iridium oxide, titanium, or carbon (e.g., graphite, such as graphite foil)” p. 10 lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 15, Diaz anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Diaz further teaches the at least one active material comprises an electrode slurry casted on a current collector (“anode 118 comprises a coating of iridium oxide on titanium … coating of iridium oxide on platinum” p. 9 lines 2-10 or “cathode 122 comprises a coating of iridium oxide on titanium … coating of iridium oxide on platinum” p. 10 lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 16, Diaz anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Diaz further teaches the cathode includes a catalyst electrically coupled with an electrically conductive substrate of the cathode (“cathode 122 comprises a coating of iridium oxide on titanium … coating of iridium oxide on platinum” p. 10 lines 1-8, not iridium oxide is a catalyst, and titanium and platinum are electrically conductive substrates).
Regarding claim 17, Diaz anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Diaz further teaches the anode includes a catalyst electrically coupled with an electrically conductive substrate of the anode (“anode 118 comprises a coating of iridium oxide on titanium … coating of iridium oxide on platinum” p. 9 lines 2-10, note iridium oxide is a catalyst and titanium and platinum are electrically conductive substrates).
Claims 1-11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hying (WO 2024/170316 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hying teaches an alkali metal salt precipitation system (abstract), comprising:
an anode (“anode 1” para. 84 and Fig. 3);
a cathode (“cathode 2” Id.), wherein
the anode is configured for oxidation and the cathode is configured for reduction (by definition, an anode is an electrode configured for oxidation and a cathode is an electrode configured for reduction), and wherein
migration of a predetermined alkali metal ion through an ion-selective solid electrolyte membrane is driven by a current across the anode and the cathode (para. 101), wherein the ion-selective solid electrolyte membrane is selectively permeable to the predetermined alkali metal ion (“the cation conductivity of the cathode separator 4 is selective: The conductivity for Li cations (Li+) must be greater than for other cations” para. 85 and Fig. 3);
at least one active material (“water” para. 102 and Fig. 4, see also para. 36 or “IrTi mixed oxide” para. 136);
a precursor solution comprising the predetermined metal ion (“Central electrolyte 13” para. 88 and Fig. 3, and “The anolyte and electrolyte in the middle chamber are lithium salt solutions in different concentrations and with different lithium salts” para. 140), wherein the precursor solution is at a first solubility of an alkali metal salt (as the precursor solution comprises lithium salts, it is by definition at a first solubility of an alkali metal salt); and
a second solution comprising the predetermined metal ion (“Li is enriched in the catholyte 12” para. 95 and Fig. 3), wherein
the second solution is at a second solubility of the alkali metal salt which causes the migrated predetermined metal ion to precipitate (“the LiOH precipitates either in the cathodic compartment …” para. 132).
Regarding claim 2, Hying further teaches the precursor solution includes LiCl, LiOH, and Li2CO3 (“The anions contained in the central electrolyte are specifically sulfate, hydrogen sulfate, carbonate, hydrogen carbonate, hydroxide, chloride, or fluoride.” para. 41).
Regarding claim 3, Hying further teaches the LiOH is insoluble in the second solution (“the LiOH precipitates either in the cathodic compartment …” para. 132).
Regarding claim 4, Hying anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Hying further teaches the first solubility is higher than the second solubility (“the LiOH precipitates either in the cathodic compartment …” para. 132; as the lithium ions are solubilized in the first solution and precipitate in the second solution, the first solubility is necessarily higher than the second solubility).
Regarding claim 5, Hying anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Hying further teaches the precursor solution includes one or more buffers (“The anions contained in the central electrolyte are specifically … carbonate, hydrogen carbonate, …” para. 41).
Regarding claim 6, Hying further teaches the one or more buffers include HCO3- and CO32- (“The anions contained in the central electrolyte are specifically … carbonate, hydrogen carbonate, …” para. 41).
Regarding claim 7, Hying anticipates the limitations of claim 5, as described above. Hying further teaches the one or more buffers are used to protect the ion-selective solid electrolyte membrane (see below).
The limitation “the one or more buffers are used to protect the ion-selective solid electrolyte membrane”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Hying teaches the one or more buffers comprise HCO3- and CO32- (“The anions contained in the central electrolyte are specifically … carbonate, hydrogen carbonate, …” para. 41), and the membrane comprises LiSICON (para. 47). The instant specification indicates that carbonate buffers are suitable for protecting LiSICON membranes.
The buffers used in the system of Hying are therefore capable of protecting the ion-selective solid electrolyte membrane. Hying therefore anticipates the limitation “the one or more buffers are used to protect the ion-selective solid electrolyte membrane”.
Regarding claim 8, Hying anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Hying further teaches the migrated predetermined metal ion is Li+ (e.g., abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Hying further teaches the second solution comprises at least one LiOH precipitate (“the LiOH precipitates either in the cathodic compartment …” para. 132).
Regarding claim 10, Hying further teaches the second solution comprises H2O, wherein the H2O is configured to facilitate the LiOH precipitate formation (see paras. 36 and 132).
Regarding claim 11, Hying anticipates the limitations of claim 9, as described above. Hying further teaches the H2O functions as a reagent (see paras. 36 and 132).
Regarding claim 13, Hying anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Hying further teaches the precursor solution includes an electroactive solute (“The cationic impurities also contained in the central electrolyte are specifically cations of the following elements: … Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, C …” para. 42).
Regarding claim 14, Hying anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Hying further teaches the cathode and the anode each include an electronically conductive substrate made of Ti (“A round disc with a diameter of 19.5 mm and a thickness of 1 mm was used as both the anode and cathode. The material in each case was a titanium expanded sheet, …” para. 136).
Regarding claim 15, Hying anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Hying further teaches the at least one active material comprises an electrode slurry casted on a current collector (“IrTi mixed oxide” para. 136).
Regarding claim 16, Hying anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Hying further teaches the cathode includes a catalyst electrically coupled with an electrically conductive substrate of the cathode (“A round disc with a diameter of 19.5 mm and a thickness of 1 mm was used as both the anode and cathode. The material in each case was a titanium expanded sheet, coated on both sides with IrTi mixed oxide” para. 136).
Regarding claim 17, Hying anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Hying further teaches the anode includes a catalyst electrically coupled with an electrically conductive substrate of the anode (“A round disc with a diameter of 19.5 mm and a thickness of 1 mm was used as both the anode and cathode. The material in each case was a titanium expanded sheet, coated on both sides with IrTi mixed oxide” para. 136).
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.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diaz (WO 2022/133458 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Diaz anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Diaz does not explicitly teach the second solution comprises at least one ether.
However, Diaz further teaches the second solution comprises a switchable polarity solvent, wherein the switchable polarity solvent may be aminoethoxyethanol, an ether (“The switchable polarity solvent of the catholyte 134 in the cathode chamber 120 may include an amine … Non-limiting examples of amines that may be used as the switchable polarity solvent include … aminoethoxyethanol (diglycolamine) (DGA) …” p. 10 lines 15-32).
As Diaz teaches a system for the electrochemical precipitation of lithium salts, Diaz is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Diaz, such that the second solution comprises aminoethoxyethanol, an ether. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Diaz suggests using it as the switchable polarity solvent. Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diaz (WO 2022/133458 A1) in view of Bodoin (US Pat. Pub. 2022/0069278 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Diaz anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
The limitation “wherein input energy used to migrate the predetermined metal ion is saved and recovered, at least in part, as electrochemical energy of the migrated predetermined metal ion at the cathode”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Diaz does not teach the system is capable of saving and recovering the input energy used to migrate the Li+ as electrochemical energy of the Li+ at the cathode.
However, Bodoin teaches a system for the production of Li-ion batteries (title), the system comprising:
an anode (“positive electrode 20” para. 103 and Fig. 2) and a cathode (“conductive substrate 10” Id.), wherein an ion-selective solid electrolyte membrane selectively permeable to Li+ cations is disposed between the anode and cathode (“a lithium ion-selective membrane” para. 103 and Fig. 2);
a precursor solution comprising Li+ ions (“aqueous lithium salt solution 40” para. 103 and Fig. 2), wherein
the Li+ ions precipitate as lithium metal at the surface of the cathode (para. 103), allowing energy used to migrate the predetermined metal ion to be saved, in part, as electrochemical energy of the migrated predetermined metal ion at the cathode (“The conductive substrate 10 and the layer of lithium metal 60 together comprise the single-sided lithium metal electrode 15, suitable for use as a fully charged working anode in a LMB [lithium metal battery].” para. 101 and Fig. 2).
As Diaz and Bodoin each teach electrochemical systems configured to transfer Li+ ions across a lithium ion-selective membrane and form a precipitate from said Li+ ions in the cathode chamber, Diaz and Bodoin are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Diaz, such that Li metal precipitates on the cathode i.e., such that input energy used to migrate the predetermined metal ion is saved, in part, as electrochemical energy of the migrated predetermined metal ion at the cathode, as taught by Bodoin. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success making this modification because Bodoin teaches electrodialysis through a lithium ion-selective membrane is suitable for forming Li metal deposits having a sufficient purity to be used as LMB anodes, and Diaz teaches the catholyte comprises an organic solvent (p. 11 lines 1-10). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of forming charged LMB anodes as products, as taught by Bodoin. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
As the input energy in the system of modified Diaz is stored as electrochemical energy in a charged LMB anode, it is capable of being recovered by discharging the LMB anode.
Modified Diaz therefore reads on the limitation “wherein input energy used to migrate the predetermined metal ion is saved and recovered, at least in part, as electrochemical energy of the migrated predetermined metal ion at the cathode”.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “wherein the input energy corresponds with an electric charge process and the electrochemical energy corresponds with an electric discharge process”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, modified Diaz teaches, via Bodoin, the input energy corresponds to an electric charge process (“variable voltage is applied … each lithium ion gains an electron, thereby causing the layer of elemental lithium 60 to be electrodeposited” para. 103), and the and the electrochemical energy is capable of corresponding to an electric discharge process (“The conductive substrate 10 and the layer of lithium metal 60 together comprise the single-sided lithium metal electrode 15, suitable for use as a fully charged working anode in a LMB” para. 101 and Fig. 2).
The system of modified Diaz therefore reads on the limitation “wherein the input energy corresponds with an electric charge process and the electrochemical energy corresponds with an electric discharge process”.
Regarding claim 20, modified Diaz renders the limitations of claim 18 obvious, as described above.
The limitation “wherein the recovery of the input energy reduces a carbon footprint of a manufacturing facility”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, modified Diaz teaches, via Bodoin, the system is capable of recovering energy during the production of LMBs at a manufacturing facility (see e.g., abstract and paras. 138-140). The input energy recovered in the system of modified Diaz is therefore capable of reducing a carbon footprint of a manufacturing facility.
Modified Diaz therefore reads on the limitation “wherein the recovery of the input energy reduces a carbon footprint of a manufacturing facility”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hoshino ‘320 (US Pat. Pub. 2022/0176320 A1) and Hoshino ‘556 (US Pat. Pub. 2022/0152556 A1) each teach systems for recovering lithium ions via combined electrodialysis and electrolysis (see e.g., abstracts).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R PARENT whose telephone number is (571)270-0948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 6 PM 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, Luan V. Van can be reached at (571)272-8521. 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.
/ALEXANDER R. PARENT/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795