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, claims 1-31 in the reply filed on 4/27/26 is acknowledged. Claims 32-44 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/413,070 is granted for claims 1-31.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/12/23 was filed on 6/12/23. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 6/12/23 are accepted by the examiner.
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 4 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 4 recites the limitation "the nanofibers" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guo et al (CN 106784557 A, machine translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Guo et al discloses a lithium ion battery comprising: a negative electrode (anode), a positive electrode (cathode), a composite separator (porous separator membrane) that is electrically separating the negative electrode and the positive electrode, and inherently an electrolyte that fills pores in the negative electrode, the positive electrode, and the composite separator, and ionically connects the anode and the cathode based upon the liquid retention capacity and liquid absorption rate of the composite separator; wherein the composite separator comprises PVDF-HFP (poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene / polymer) and nanodiamonds, wherein the nanodiamonds are in a form of powders that are dispersed within the PVDF-HFP, wherein the nanodiamonds undergoes a surface modification treatment with silane coupling agent ([0004],[0009],[0010],[0041],[0053]).
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.
Claims 2-4, 6, 7, 18-22, and 26-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al in view of Liu et al (US 2016/0365556). The Guo reference is applied to claim 1 for reasons stated above.
Regarding claims 2-4, 6, 7, and 18-22, Guo et al does not expressly teach a polymer that is in a form of nanofibers (claim 2); wherein the nanofibers have an average diameter in a range from 200 to 990 nm (claim 3); NDs that are in a form of powders that are dispersed within the nanofibers (claim 4); a porous separator membrane that has a porosity in a range from 40 vol % to 90 vol % (claim 6); a thickness of the porous separator membrane that ranges from 1 micron to 40 microns (claim 7); a nanofiber comprising a polymer and nanodiamonds (NDs), wherein the NDs are uniformly dispersed within the nanofiber (claim 18).
Liu et al discloses a nonwoven nanofiber separator comprising nanofibers having a diameter of 200-300 nm, the nonwoven nanofiber separator having a porosity of about 60% to about 90% and a thickness of 45 um; wherein the nonwoven nanofiber separator includes a composite of PVDF and PVDF-HFP ([0088],[0091],[0092],[0105] and Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Guo composite separator to include a separator having a porosity of about 60% to about 90% and nanofibers having a diameter of 200-300 nm, wherein the nanodiamonds are uniformly dispersed within the nanofiber in order to improve physical stability of the battery separator with improved performance ([0002]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Guo/Liu composite separator to include a thickness of 1 micron to 40 microns because even if the range of prior art and the claimed range do not overlap, obviousness may still exist if the ranges are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect a difference in properties (In re Woodruff 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed thickness of the separator.
Regarding claims 26-31, Guo et al as modified by Liu et al does not expressly teach a weight percentage of the NDs in the porous separator membrane that ranges from 0.1 wt% to 40 wt% (claim 26); a weight percentage of the NDs in the porous separator membrane that ranges from 0.1 to 1 wt% (claim 27); a weight percentage of the NDs in the porous separator membrane that ranges from 1 to 5 wt% (claim 28); a weight percentage of the NDs in the porous separator membrane that ranges from 5 to 10 wt% (claim 29); a weight percentage of the NDs in the porous separator membrane that ranges from 10 to 20 wt% (claim 30); a weight percentage of the NDs in the porous separator membrane that ranges from 20 to 40 wt% (claim 31).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Guo/Liu composite separator to include a weight percentage of the NDs in the porous separator membrane that ranges from 0.1 wt% to 40 wt%; a weight percentage of the NDs in the porous separator membrane that ranges from 0.1 to 1 wt%; a weight percentage of the NDs in the porous separator membrane that ranges from 1 to 5 wt%; a weight percentage of the NDs in the porous separator membrane that ranges from 5 to 10 wt%; a weight percentage of the NDs in the porous separator membrane that ranges from 10 to 20 wt%; a weight percentage of the NDs in the porous separator membrane that ranges from 20 to 40 wt% because it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The weight percentage of the NDs in the porous separator membrane is a result effective variable of optimizing the porosity, the liquid retention capacity and liquid absorption rate of the separator membrane. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454. 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed weight percentage of NDs in the porous separator membrane.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al in view of Carlson et al (US 2019/0260000). The Guo reference is applied to claim 1 for reasons stated above.
However, Guo et al does not expressly teach a cathode comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (NCM), lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA), lithium cobalt oxide (LCO), lithium manganese oxide (LMO), and lithium iron phosphate.
Carlson et al discloses a cathode comprising an electroactive material including lithium cobalt oxide, lithium manganese oxide, lithium iron phosphate, lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide ([0012]).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because the disclosure of Carlson indicates that lithium cobalt oxide, lithium manganese oxide, lithium iron phosphate, or lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide is a suitable material for use as cathode electroactive material. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has generally been held to be prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.07). As such, it would be obvious to use lithium cobalt oxide, lithium manganese oxide, lithium iron phosphate, or lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al in view of Shiro et al (JP 6730479 B1) using (US 2022/0064007). The Guo reference is applied to claim 1 for reasons stated above.
However, Guo et al does not expressly teach NDs containing a surface-modifying group containing a polypropylene glycol (PPG) chain (claim 9); wherein the surface-modifying group has a structure derived from a silane coupling agent containing the PPG chain (claim 10); wherein the NDs have a structure represented by Formula (1) below: -Si-PPG-CH3 (1) wherein, a bond extending from Si to the left directly or indirectly bonds to the ND (claim 11).
Shiro et al discloses nanodiamond particles containing a surface modifying group, wherein the surface modifying group has a structure derived from a silane coupling agent containing a polyoxyalkylene chain such as PPG (polypropylene glycol ([0110]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Guo composite separator to include NDs containing a surface-modifying group containing a polypropylene glycol (PPG) chain; wherein the surface-modifying group has a structure derived from a silane coupling agent containing the PPG chain; wherein the NDs have a structure represented by Formula (1) below: -Si-PPG-CH3 (1) wherein, a bond extending from Si to the left directly bonds to the ND in order to provide a polyoxyalkylene-chain surface-modified nanodiamond that is excellent in safety and productivity ([0010]).
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. The Guo reference is applied to claim 1 for reasons stated above. In addition, Guo et al also discloses an amount of nano-diamonds that is 2%-10% of the weight of PVDF-HFP micro-powder, wherein as the amount of nano-diamonds added increases, the porosity of the membrane increases, thereby improving the liquid retention capacity and liquid absorption rate of the membrane ([0009],[0041]).
However, Guo et al does not expressly teach a weight percentage of the NDs in the porous separator membrane that ranges from 0.1 wt% to 40 wt% (claim 12); a weight percentage of the NDs in the porous separator membrane that ranges from 0.1 to 1 wt% (claim 13); a weight percentage of the NDs in the porous separator membrane that ranges from 1 to 5 wt% (claim 14); a weight percentage of the NDs in the porous separator membrane that ranges from 5 to 10 wt% (claim 15); a weight percentage of the NDs in the porous separator membrane that ranges from 10 to 20 wt% (claim 16); a weight percentage of the NDs in the porous separator membrane that ranges from 20 to 40 wt% (claim 17).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Guo composite separator to include a weight percentage of the NDs in the porous separator membrane that ranges from 0.1 wt% to 40 wt%; a weight percentage of the NDs in the porous separator membrane that ranges from 0.1 to 1 wt%; a weight percentage of the NDs in the porous separator membrane that ranges from 1 to 5 wt%; a weight percentage of the NDs in the porous separator membrane that ranges from 5 to 10 wt%; a weight percentage of the NDs in the porous separator membrane that ranges from 10 to 20 wt%; a weight percentage of the NDs in the porous separator membrane that ranges from 20 to 40 wt% because it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The weight percentage of the NDs in the porous separator membrane is a result effective variable of optimizing the porosity, liquid retention capacity and liquid absorption rate of the separator. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454. 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed weight percentage of NDs in the porous separator membrane.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al in view of Liu et al as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Shiro et al (JP 6730479 B1) using (US 2022/0064007).
However, Guo et al as modified by Liu et al does not expressly teach NDs containing a surface-modifying group containing a polypropylene glycol (PPG) chain (claim 23); wherein the surface-modifying group has a structure derived from a silane coupling agent containing the PPG chain (claim 24); wherein the NDs have a structure represented by Formula (1) below: -Si-PPG-CH3 (1) wherein, a bond extending from Si to the left directly or indirectly bonds to the ND (claim 25).
Shiro et al discloses nanodiamond particles containing a surface modifying group, wherein the surface modifying group has a structure derived from a silane coupling agent containing a polyoxyalkylene chain such as PPG (polypropylene glycol ([0110]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Guo/Liu composite separator to include NDs containing a surface-modifying group containing a polypropylene glycol (PPG) chain; wherein the surface-modifying group has a structure derived from a silane coupling agent containing the PPG chain; wherein the NDs have a structure represented by Formula (1) below: -Si-PPG-CH3 (1) wherein, a bond extending from Si to the left directly bonds to the ND in order to provide a polyoxyalkylene-chain surface-modified nanodiamond that is excellent in safety and productivity ([0010]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang et al (CN 113120959 A) discloses nanodiamonds that improves the mechanical, thermal, and electrical properties of polymer materials, and can improve the liquid absorption rate, thermal shrinkage rate, ionic conductivity, and charge-discharge cycle performance of the separator ([0106]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY S CHUO whose telephone number is (571)272-0717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
/T.S.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights