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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1, after further consideration, it is found that the recitation of “wherein the Y-type zeolite adsorbent including Al comprises Na-Y, Li-Y, or a mixture thereof,” is not supported by the originally filed claims or instant specification. The instant specification does not support a mixture of Na-Y and Li-Y zeolites/ionic substitution. Paragraph 44 of the instant specification provided below does not indicate mixtures of substituted zeolites.
“[0044] In a specific example, the Y-type zeolite has a structure composed of Al, Si, and O as described above, and may further include a material selected from the group consisting of Na, C, Ca, S, Cl, and Li. That is, the Y-type zeolite may be a zeolite substituted (ion exchanged) by an ion selected from the group consisting of Na, C, Ca, S, Cl, and Li.”
Similarly, Claim 2 is found to not be supported by the instant specification because there is no indication of Na-Y and Li-Y or mixtures thereof further including “a material selected from the group consisting of C, Ca, S, and Cl,“ see instant specification paragraph 44 above.
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 14 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 14 recites:
wherein the Y-type zeolite adsorbent is comprised in an amount of 5 to 15 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte.
This claim is unclear as to what is structurally required, because Claim 1, on which Claim 14 depends, recites “a Y-type zeolite adsorbent is disposed at a terrace sealing portion of between the secondary cell case and the electrode assembly.” Does the claim require that the y-type zeolite absorbent disposed at the terrace sealing portion be provided in an amount based on the electrolyte in the stacked electrode assembly or is y-type zeolite adsorbent additionally added to the electrolyte in the stacked electrode assembly.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otohata (US-20030118900-A1) in view of Xiao et al. (US-20190229318-A1) with evidence from Godillot et al. (US20240396079A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Otohata teaches:
A secondary cell comprising (lithium-ion secondary batter, see [0071]):
a stacked electrode assembly in which a positive electrode plate and a negative electrode plate are disposed with a separator interposed therebetween (battery body with the following stacked structure separator/anode/separator/cathode/separator .../anode/separator body structure, see [0064]);
and a pouch-type cell case storing the electrode assembly and an electrolyte solution (an electrolyte was then introduced into the laminate housing 11 (i.e., pouch), see [0070]),
wherein a Y-type zeolite adsorbent is disposed at a terrace sealing portion of between the secondary cell case and the electrode assembly (the moisture absorbent 13 is arranged at the edge portion of the laminate film, see [0056] and Figs. 12-13 reproduced below ),
Otohata teaches the function of the zeolite is to absorb moisture, see X. However, Otohata is silent toward the structure of the zeolite disposed at the sealing portion and therefore does not teach the zeolite is Y:or have the following ion exchanged structure:
and wherein the Y-type zeolite adsorbent including Al comprises Na-Y, Li-Y, or a mixture thereof.
To solve the same problem of providing a zeolite for a battery (see [0008]), Xiao teaches a lithium ion-exchanged zeolite particle, with Al, can suitable be Y-type, and include Na+ for the purpose of water adsorption, see [0012], [0014], [0065] and [0068].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have used a lithium ion-exchanged Y-type zeolite that can suitably include Na+ because Xiao indicates this is a suitable zeolite structure for water adsorbing for battery applications.
PNG
media_image1.png
894
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Otohata is silent toward:
wherein the Y-type zeolite adsorbent further includes a material selected from the group consisting of C, Ca, S, and Cl.
To solve the same problem of providing a zeolite for a battery (see [0008]), Xiao teaches a lithium ion-exchanged zeolite particle that can suitable be Y-type and include Na+ and Ca+ for the purpose of water adsorption, see [0012], [0014], and [0068].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have used a lithium ion-exchanged Y-type zeolite that can suitably include Na+ and Ca+ because Xiao indicates this is a suitable zeolite structure for water adsorbing for battery applications.
Regarding Claim 3, as evidenced by Godillot, Y type zeolites are characterized by an Si/Al mole ratio of greater than 1.50, see [0045]. Therefore, because modified Otohata teaches a Y type zeolite, the following limitation is met.
wherein the Y-type zeolite has a Si/Al ratio of 1.5 or more.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Otohata teaches:
wherein the Y-type zeolite adsorbent is a composite of the Y-type zeolite absorbent and a resin (a moisture absorbent sheet wherein zeolite was dispersed into resin was cut into a stripe, see [0067]).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Otohata in view of Xiao teaches:
wherein in the composite, the Y- type zeolite adsorbent forms a percolation network.
Xiao teaches the “crystal structures of zeolites include interstitial spaces (or cages) of molecular dimensions,” see [0068]
Regarding Claim 9, modified Otohata in view of Xiao teaches:
wherein the composite is a porous composite.
It is the Examiner’s position that because the moisture absorbing material after dispersed in a resin needs to remain at least porous to moisture to continue to function as moisture absorbing.
Regarding Claim 10, Otohata is silent toward:
wherein the Y-type zeolite adsorbent is prepared in a form selected from the group consisting of powder, pellet, and ball forms.
To solve the same problem of providing a zeolite for a battery (see [0008]), Xiao teaches a lithium ion-exchanged zeolite particle with small particle sizes aid the formation of uniform layer deposition, see [0067].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have used a lithium ion-exchanged Y-type zeolite that is in the form of small sized particle to aid the formation of uniform layer deposition.
Regarding Claim 11, Otohata discloses:
wherein the Y-type zeolite adsorbent is added in a form selected from the group consisting of a film, a sheet, and a non- woven fabric (a moisture absorbent sheet wherein zeolite was dispersed into resin was cut into a stripe, see [0067]).
Regarding Claim 13, is considered product-by-process claim because the claim recites “wherein the Y-type zeolite adsorbent is prepared by a N2 masking treatment”. Note, the instant specification does not further detail a structural distinction that is imparted to the Y-type zeolite absorbent form the preparation process of a N2 masking treatment, see instant spec.[0018]. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otohata (US-20030118900-A1) in view of Xiao et al. (US-20190229318-A1) with evidence from Godillot et al. (US20240396079A1) as applied to Claim 1 above and in further view of Kaneko et al. (US-20190198926-A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Otohata is silent toward:
wherein a pore diameter inside the Y-type zeolite adsorbent is 1 to 10 Å.
To solve the same problem of providing a y-type zeolite as a moisture adsorbent in a battery, Kaneko teaches having the adsorbent zeolite have a pore size of 3-10 Å which is within the claimed range. Kaneko additionally teaches that a pore size within this range balances the considerations of having pore size large enough to accommodate moisture and mechanical strength.
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have selected a pore size of 3-10 Å taught by Kaneko for the zeolites of Nemoto to balance having pore size large enough to accommodate moisture and mechanical strength. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 5, Otohata is silent toward:
wherein the Y-type zeolite adsorbent has a specific surface area by BET measurement of 100 to 1000 m2/g.
To solve the same problem of providing a y-type zeolite as a moisture adsorbent in a battery, Kaneko teaches having the adsorbent zeolite have a specific surface area of 100 to 3000 m2/g which overlaps the claimed range. Kaneko additionally teaches that a specific surface area within this range balances the considerations of maintaining enough surface contact for sufficient adsorption performance and mechanical strength.
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have selected a specific surface area in the range of 100 to 3000 m2/g taught by Kaneko for the zeolites of Otohata to balance maintaining enough surface contact for sufficient adsorption performance and mechanical strength. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otohata (US-20030118900-A1) in view of Xiao et al. (US-20190229318-A1) with evidence from Godillot et al. (US20240396079A1) as applied to Claim 1and 6 above and in further view of Fritz et al. (US-20060105158-A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Otohata is silent toward the resin used that the zeolite is dispersed and, therefore, does not teach:
wherein the resin is selected from the group consisting of polyolefin and polyester.
To solve the same problem of providing a water absorbent with a zeolite material (see Abstract), Fritz teaches disposing a zeolite (including y-type, see [0018]) within a polymer matrix to form a shaped article, see Abstract. Fritz further teaches that the zeolite in a polymer matrix which can suitably be a polyolefin or a polyester, see [0021]. Additionally, Fritz teaches the structure of the polymer matrix is porous to facilitate transportation of the water absorbate and the pore volume of the polymer matrix can also be adjusted easily for applications where slow or fast adsorption kinetics are desired, see [0017].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the resin in which the zeolite is dispersed be a polyolefin or polyester because Fritz teaches theses are suitable a polymers in order to provide a shaped article which has tunable adsorption kinetics.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otohata (US-20030118900-A1) in view of Xiao et al. (US-20190229318-A1) with evidence from Godillot et al. (US20240396079A1) as applied to Claim 1and 6 above and in further view of Xiao et al. (US-20180254531-A1 referred to as Xiao-2).
Regarding Claim 14, Otohata is silent toward:
wherein the Y-type zeolite adsorbent is comprised in an amount of 5 to 15 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte.
To solve the same problem of providing a zeolite for battery applications (see [0049]), Xiao-2 teaches disposing lithiated and suitably y-type zeolite particles (see [0020]) within the electrolyte have the effect of trapping or inhibiting the movement of deleterious water molecules, hydrogen ions, hydrofluoric acid (HF), and transition metal ions without restricting lithium migration, see [0043]. Xiao-2 further teaches lithiated zeolite particles may be present in the electrolyte 18 in an amount constituting 1-10 wt% of the electrolyte 18 which overlaps the claimed range, see [0049].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have provided the lithiated Y-type zeolite in the electrolyte in the amount given above to provide the advantageous effect of trapping or inhibiting the movement of deleterious water molecules, hydrogen ions, hydrofluoric acid (HF), and transition metal ions without restricting lithium migration. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otohata (US-20030118900-A1) in view of Xiao et al. (US-20190229318-A1) with evidence from Godillot et al. (US20240396079A1) as applied to Claim 1 above and in further view of Goa et al. (US-20210210762-A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Otohata in view of Xiao is unclear as to the appropriate weight percent for lithium ion in the lithium-ion exchanged zeolite, and therefore, does not teach:
wherein the Y-type zeolite adsorbent comprises Na-Y, and the Na-Y includes 5 to 20 wt% of Na ions.
To solve the same problem of providing a zeolite for battery applications (see Abstract), Goa teaches a zeolite that can suitably have a concentration of lithium ion 0.05 wt. % to 6 wt. %, which overlaps the claimed range, see [0044]. Gao further teaches this is a suitable embodiment to achieve the goal of water absorption, see Abstract.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping claimed range of sodium ion within the lithium-ion exchanged zeolite taught by Gao for the composition of modified Otohata because this is suitable range to achieve the goal of water absorption. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 16, Otohata in view of Xiao is unclear as to the appropriate weight percent for lithium ion in the lithium-ion exchanged zeolite, and therefore, does not teach:
wherein the Y-type zeolite adsorbent comprises Li-Y, and the Li-Y includes 0.5 to 20 wt% of Li ions.
To solve the same problem of providing a zeolite for battery applications (see Abstract), Goa teaches a lithium-ion exchanged zeolite that can suitably have a concentration of lithium ion 0.05 wt.% to about 25 wt.%, which encompasses the claimed range, see [0044]. Gao further teaches this is a suitable embodiment to achieve the goal of water absorption, see Abstract.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping claimed range of lithium ion within the lithium-ion exchanged zeolite taught by Gao for the composition of modified Otohata because this is suitable range to achieve the goal of water absorption. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kayla E Clary whose telephone number is (571)272-2854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 (PT).
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/K.E.C./
Kayla E. ClaryExaminer, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
