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
Claims 1-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 October 10th, 2025.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 10 includes a limitation that requires a “voltage pulse configured to reduce a concentration of manganese ions in the electrolyte”. Chemically speaking, the term “reduce” refers to a chemical reaction in which a substance decreases its oxidation number. In this case, the manganese ions that are a part of said “concentration” may have their oxidation number decreased (supported by paragraph [0028] of the specification as filed). It also has a more commonly used definition where a number or quantity of an item is decreased. In this case, the actual number of manganese ions may be decreased when said manganese reacts with hydrogen fluoride (HF) to form manganese fluoride (MnF2) to form a cathode solid-electrolyte interface (see paragraph [0029] of the specification as filed). For the sake of this Office Action, both of these interpretations may support a prior art rejection.
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.
Claim 12 is 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 12 recites the limitation "the HF formed " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 9 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo (US 2012/0288767 A1) and further in view of Shi ‘425 (US 2005/0287425 A1, henceforth referred to as Shi ‘425 '425).
Regarding claim 9, Jo discloses a battery cell comprised of an electrolyte, an anode, a separator, and a cathode comprising lithium and manganese (abstract, [0042]). Jo fails to teach the application of a cation-selective ion-exchange membrane in a battery cell. Shi ‘425 is analogous art to Jo because both teach materials in lithium-ion batteries [0001]. Shi ‘425 teaches that using a separator that can allow lithium ions to transport through the separator while blocking manganese ion transport may reduce or eliminate “chemical reactions which are responsible for a shortened shelf-life in the battery” [0005]. 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 the separator/membrane of Shi ‘425 in the battery cell of Jo in order increase the shelf-life of the battery.
Regarding claim 14, Shi ‘425 teaches that the gel-forming polymer (a component of the membrane) may be comprised of polyvinylidene fluoride [0013].
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Shi ‘425 teaches that the membrane may have a pore size of 0.02 µm – 0.5 µm (20 nm – 500 nm) [0014], which overlaps with the claimed range of 1 nm – 150 nm. 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 claims 17 and 18, Shi ‘425 teaches that the membrane may have a porosity in the range of 40% - 80% [0014], overlapping with the claimed range of 40% - 60%. 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 claims 19 and 20, Shi ‘425 does not explicitly teach the claimed ratio of ionic transport rates. However, Shi ‘425 teaches that controlling the density and composition of the gel-coating component of the membrane will lead to “a proper balance of the ion-transport coefficients” [0012]. They continue to teach that varying the thickness of the polymer coating allows for control of the “relative rates of the transport of various ions” [0012]. Optimizing the factors related to the membrane’s structure will lead to an optimized ratio of ion-transport coefficients. Therefore, achieving the claimed ratios is a matter of routine optimization. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to optimize the transport rates of Shi’s membrane to achieve the benefits taught by Shi ‘425 (such as an increase the shelf-life of the battery) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo and Shi ‘425 (henceforth referred to as Modified Jo) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Shi ‘425 (US 10,601,012 B1, henceforth referred to as Shi '102).
Modified Jo fails to explicitly teach the application of Shi ‘425’s membrane onto a separator film in a battery cell. Shi ‘102 is analogous art to Modified Jo because they both teach materials in lithium ion batteries (title). Shi ‘102 teaches a hybrid separator comprised of at least two layers of membranes where at least one membrane is manufactured by a dry process and at least one membrane is manufactured by a wet process. This hybrid separator has excellent overall separator performance properties due to this combination (column 2, lines 49-56). Shi ‘102 continues to teach that the layers may be bonded to each other using any method that involves laminating one layer onto another (column 4, lines 5 and 6). Shi ‘425 teaches that their membrane may be made from either a wet process or a dry process [0023]. Jo does not explicitly teach the process by which their separator is made, but does teach that their lithium ion battery can be manufactured by “the general method well known in the related art” [0056] which includes either a dry process or a wet process.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the two membranes (with different manufacturing processes) into one hybrid separator by laminating/disposing Shi ‘425’s membrane onto Jo’s separator before the effective filing date of the present invention to obtain a hybrid separator with excellent separator performance properties.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 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. The state of the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention does not teach the use of a “voltage pulse”, electric shock, or other similar concepts to 1) reduce the concentration of manganese ions in the electrolytic solution and 2) generate HF. That HF would then react with manganese ions to form a protective layer comprised of MnF-2, a metal fluoride, on the cathode. Contemporary techniques were limited to pre-treating the active material with metal fluorides or including scavenging additives that would then react with HF (without the use of a shock). For example, Karthikeyan (US 2011/0244331 A1) teaches that positive active materials “can be coated with a metal fluoride to improve the performance of the materials” (abstract).
Huang (CN 111116651 A), the closest art to the present application, teaches a phosphite ester compound that functions very similarly to the concept of the present application. Huang’s compound reacts with O2 and HF in the battery to form a CEI film on the surface of the positive electrode [0027]. This film stabilizes the electrode and inhibits the elution of transition metals, similar to how the CEI of the present application protects the cathode materials from degradation (see [0070] of the specification as filed). In conclusion, the critical distinction that the present application makes over the contemporary art is the use of a voltage pulse to initiate the desired chemical reactions.
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mun (US 2018/0047983 A1) teaches that uniformly coating aluminum fluoride onto a cathode active material enhances the cycle stability and lifetime of a battery (abstract).
Lopez (US 2010/0151332 A1) teaches that coating lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt oxides with metal fluorides improves the performance of the materials (abstract).
Sun (US 2009/0087362 A1) discloses a process focused on coating lithium-cobalt oxides with aluminum fluoride (abstract).
Niu (CN 113410519 A) teaches the usage of several additives that form films on an electrode, including additives based on boric acid and ester-based compounds ([0007] and [0008]).
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
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722