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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I: Claim 1-14 in the reply filed on May, 20th, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 14 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 14 recites “wherein the separator comprises polypropylene/polyethylene/polypropylene (PP/PE/PP) separator, poly(tetrafluoroethylene) (PTFE), poly(vinyl chloride) (PVC) and polyamide (PA).” is unclear if the claim is claiming separate separators that contain polypropylene/polyethylene/polypropylene, poly(tetrafluoroethylene) (PTFE), or poly(vinyl chloride) (PVC) and polyamide (PA) or if all compounds listed are required, or if the separator is claiming three distinct separators with the listed compounds. For purposes of examination the examiner with interpret the claim language to mean that the claim is claiming any one of a separator that contains either separators that contain polypropylene/polyethylene/polypropylene, or poly(tetrafluoroethylene) (PTFE), or poly(vinyl chloride) (PVC) and polyamide (PA).
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 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) 1-4 & 6-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20210036323).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses a high-capacity, high energy density and high-power reversible Li-Cl2 battery system ([005]), comprising:
A halogen-based cathode ([006]);
An anode ([006]);
A separator placed between the halogen-based cathode and the anode (separator-18, [0017], Fig. 1); and
An organic electrolyte disposed in a space between the halogen-based cathode and the anode (electrolyte-14, Fig, 1, [0017]), wherein the halogen-based cathode comprises at least one interhalogen compound including chlorine statically absorbed to a porous host electrode (cathode is porous, [0010], metal halide interspersed in cathode matrix, [0010], metal halide can be chlorine and other halogens, [0036]) and the porous host electrode comprises:
At least one porous material ([0034]);
A plurality of electrically conductive particles ([0034]);
A binder ([0037]); and
A current collector ([0033]).
Kim does not directly disclose wherein the reversible Li-Cl2 battery system has a capacity of at least 200 mAh g-1, and energy density in a rnage of 750-1100 Wh kg-1, and a power density in a range of 1400-4500 Wh kg-1 within a current density of 425 to 1250 mA g-1.
Kim discloses a battery with improved cell level energy density ([005]). Kim further discloses wherein the battery has improved high energy efficiency, high power density, and high reversibility ([0042]).
The examiner notes that the claimed components of the instant claim 1 that are directly related to the capacity, energy density, power density, and current density, such as the cathode material, the anode material, and the organic electrolyte, are formed of the same materials as Kim’s disclosure.
“In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.” Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (emphasis in original). In PAR Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. TWI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 112 USPQ2d 1945 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the Federal Circuit remanded a decision to the district court because the record did not present sufficient evidence to prove inherency in the context of obviousness. The district court concluded the pharmacokinetic parameters of a claim are inherent properties of the obvious formulation. The Federal Circuit stated that while “inherency may support a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis”, “the use of inherency, a doctrine originally rooted in anticipation, must be carefully circumscribed in the context of obviousness.” Id. at 1194-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1952. “[I]n order to rely on inherency to establish the existence of a claim limitation in the prior art in an obviousness analysis – the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art.” Id. at 1195-96, 112 USPQ2d at 1952.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Kim to optimize the battery to have wherein the reversible Li-Cl2 battery system has a capacity of at least 200 mAh g-1, and energy density in a rnage of 750-1100 Wh kg-1, and a power density in a range of 1400-4500 Wh kg-1 within a current density of 425 to 1250 mA g-1.
Regarding Claim 2, Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Kim discloses wherein chlorine ions are dissolved into the electrolyte (halide slat is dissolved into its ions into electrolyte, [0023]). Kim further discloses wherein the halide ions can be chlorine and iodine ([0023]). Kim further discloses that the electrolyte is optimized for improved reversibility ([0028]).
Kim does not directly disclose wherein the Cl0 ions are efficiently and chemically anchored by forming interhalogen bonds with I, allowing for a Cl0/-1 reaction in a highly reversible manner.
The examiner notes that Kim discloses improved reversibility and the presence of Cl and I ions in the electrolyte. The examiner further notes that wherein the “Cl0 ions are efficiently and chemically anchored by forming interhalogen bonds with I, allowing for a Cl0/-1 reaction in a highly reversible manner” is a product by process claim. Therefore, it the examiner’s opinion that since the structure of the Cl ions and iodine ions being dissolved into the electrolyte that has improved reversibility, that Kim discloses the limitations of wherein the Cl0 ions are efficiently and chemically anchored by forming interhalogen bonds with I, allowing for a Cl0/-1 reaction in a highly reversible manner.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Kim to have wherein the Cl0 ions are efficiently and chemically anchored by forming interhalogen bonds with I, allowing for a Cl0/-1 reaction in a highly reversible manner.
Regarding Claim 3, Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Kim further discloses wherein the anode comprises a Li Plate or Li foil (anode can be lithium metal, [0018).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Kim further discloses wherein the at least one porous material comprises activated carbon, templated carbon, carbide-derived carbons, caron nanotubes, carbon aerogels, carbon onions, graphene and carbon nanofibers ([0033]).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Kim further discloses wherein the organic electrolyte comprises one or more mixed solvent with or without additives ([0022], [0024]).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above.
The examiner notes that claim language “or mixed with a volume ratio of … filled with Ar atmosphere” is an optional claim limitation.
Kim further discloses wherein the organic electrolyte is ether-based electrolyte selected from the group consisting of monoglyme, diglyme, triglyme, tetraglyme ([0024]). Therefore Kim discloses the limitations of Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 8, Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Kim further discloses wherein the organic electrolyte further comprises one or more lithium salt as a solute ([0022]).
Regarding Claim 9, Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Kim further discloses wherein the one or more lithium salts is selected from the group consisting of LiTFSI, LIOTF, LiPF6, LiCl4, LiBF4, LiAsF6, and LiDFOB ([0022]).
Regarding Claim 10, Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Kim further discloses wherein lithium bis(oxalto) borate can be used as an additive ([0022]).
Regarding Claim 11, Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Kim further discloses wherein the current collector is selected from a group consisting of carbon cloth, carbon paper, graphite paper, Ti foil/mesh and stainless steel ([0033]).
Regarding Claim 12, Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Kim further discloses wherein the plurality of electrically conductive particles comprises carbon nanotubes, graphene, conductive carbon black, Super P, acetylene black, carbon nanofibers ([0034]).
Regarding Claim 13, Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Kim further discloses wherein the binder material comprises styrene-butadiene rubber and polyvinylidene fluoride ([0037]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20210036323) in view of Kern (US20200144617).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Kim discloses wherein the halogen material can be formed of a combination of Iodine and Chlorine ions ([0036]), but does not directly disclose that the interhalogen compound comprises iodine trichloride.
Kern disclose a method of making a cathode ([001]). Kern further disclose the use of interhalogen compounds ([005]). Kern discloses that the interhalogen compounds can include ICl-----3 ([0040]). Kern teaches that this interhalogen compound provides improved charge density and specific energy ([007]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Kim with the teachings of Kern to have wherein the interhalogen compound comprises iodine trichloride. This modification would yield the expected result of improved charge density and specific energy.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20210036323) in view of Kim’ (US20230024358).
Regarding Claim 14, Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above
Kim discloses wherein the separator can be formed of polymer films ([0041]), but does not directly disclose wherein the separator comprises polypropylene/polyethylene/polypropylene (PP/PE/PP) separator, poly(tetrafluoroethylene) (PTFE), poly(vinyl chloride) (PVC) and polyamide (PA).
See 112(b) rejection above for interpretation.
Kim’ discloses a separator for use in a battery that contains a halogen cathode (halogen cathode, [0050], separator-32, [0121]) Kim’ further discloses wherein the separator can be formed of polyethylene, polypropylene, poly(tetrafluoroethylene), or poly (vinyl chloride), where the polymer film, when present, includes polypropylene and/or polyethylene ([0121]). Kim’ teaches that this structure provides improved battery performance ([0124]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Kim with the teachings of Kim’ to have wherein the separator comprises polypropylene/polyethylene/polypropylene (PP/PE/PP) separator, poly(tetrafluoroethylene) (PTFE), poly(vinyl chloride) (PVC) and polyamide (PA).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANKITH R SRIPATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 am - 5:00pm.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/ANKITH R SRIPATHI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights