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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 9-29 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species 2) Continuous network of polymeric precursors of Figure 1B (appears to be claims: 9, 10, 11 and 12) in the reply filed on 04/13/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 3 and 8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 10-11, 14-15, and 19-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 29, 27. 2. 11. 16-17, and 20-24 of U.S. Patent No. US 12009531 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claims 1-2, 10-11, 14-15, and 19-26 are anticipated by patent claims 29, 27, 2, 11, 16-17, and 20-24 of Baucom et al. respectively.
Application claims 1 and 2 are anticipated by claim 29 of Baucom et al.
Application claims 10 and 11 are anticipated by claim 27 of Baucom et al.
Application claim 14 is anticipated by claim 2 of Baucom et al.
Application claim 15 is anticipated by claim 11 of Baucom et al.
Application claim 19 is anticipated by claim 16 of Baucom et al.
Application claim 20 is anticipated by claim 17 of Baucom et al.
Application claim 21 is anticipated by claim 20 of Baucom et al.
Application claims 22 and 23 are anticipated by claim 21 of Baucom et al.
Application claim 24 is anticipated by claim 22 of Baucom et al.
Application claim 25 is anticipated by claim 23 of Baucom et al.
Application claim 26 is anticipated by claim 24 of Baucom et al.
Refer to the table below.
Instant
Reference (Baucom et al.)
1
A battery, comprising: an electrochemical cell;
29
A battery comprising the electrochemical cell as recited in claim 25,
and a substantially non-metallic protective mechanism for:
wherein the polymer support system
mitigating or preventing mechanical damage to the electrochemical cell;
provides equivalent or better mechanical strength to the battery
and wherein a total weight of the battery is at least about 1% less than a total weight of an otherwise equivalent battery including a substantially metallic protective mechanism for mitigating or preventing the mechanical damage or the electrical damage.
wherein the battery excludes any metal-based compressive structures, and wherein a total weight of the battery is in a range from at least about 1% to about 25% less than a total weight of an otherwise substantially identical battery including a conventional, metal-based compressive structure.
2
wherein the total weight of the battery is up to about 25% less than the total weight of the otherwise equivalent battery including the substantially metallic protective mechanism
to about 25% less than a total weight of an otherwise substantially identical battery including a conventional, metal-based compressive structure.
for mitigating or preventing the mechanical damage or the electrical damage.
provides equivalent or better mechanical strength to the battery
10
The battery as recited in claim 1,
27
The electrochemical cell as recited in claim 1,
wherein the substantially non- metallic protective mechanism comprises a continuous network of polymers extending throughout an interior volume of the electrochemical cell.
wherein the polymer support system comprises one or more cured interpenetrating support structures disposed in the interior volume of the electrochemical cell and mechanically or chemically coupled to an enclosure containing the electrochemical cell.
11
The battery as recited in claim 1,
27
The electrochemical cell as recited in claim 1,
wherein the substantially non- metallic protective mechanism comprises one or more interpenetrating support structures disposed in the interior volume of the electrochemical cell and mechanically coupled to an enclosure containing the electrochemical cell.
wherein the polymer support system comprises one or more cured interpenetrating support structures disposed in the interior volume of the electrochemical cell and mechanically or chemically coupled to an enclosure containing the electrochemical cell.
14
The battery as recited in claim 1, wherein at least portions of the substantially non-metallic protective mechanism disposed within an interior volume of the chemical cell comprise
2
The electrochemical cell as recited in claim 1, wherein the plurality of precursors of the polymer support system is selected from the group consisting of:
one or more lithium ion transporting compounds.
one or more lithium ion transporting compounds;
15
The battery as recited in claim 14,
11
The electrochemical cell as recited in claim 2,
wherein the one or more lithium ion transporting compounds are selected from the group consisting of: palladium (II) oxide, lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2), lithium lanthanides, diphenyliodonium hexafluorophosphate (DPIHFP), lithium borohydride (LiBH4) lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI) (LiC2F6NO4S2), lithium thiophosphates, NASICON, Lii.3Alo.3Ti1.7(PO4)3 (LATP)), perovskite, Li0.5La0.5TiO3, (LLTO), lithium azide (Li3N), argyrodite (LiPS5Cl), and combinations thereof.
wherein the one or more lithium ion transporting compounds are selected from the group consisting of: palladium (II) oxide, lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2), lithium lanthanides, diphenyliodonium hexafluorophosphate (DPIHFP), lithium borohydride (LiBH4) lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI) (LiC2F6NO4S2), lithium thiophosphates, NASICON, Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3(LATP)), perovskite, Li0.5La0.5TiO3, (LLTO), lithium azide (Li3N), argyrodite (LiPS5Cl), and combinations thereof.
19
The battery as recited in claim 1, wherein the electrochemical cell is arranged in a jelly-roll configuration and contained within an enclosure.
16
The electrochemical cell as recited in claim 1, wherein the electrochemical cell is arranged in a jelly-roll configuration and contained within an enclosure.
20
The battery as recited in claim 19, wherein the substantially non-metallic protective mechanism is also present within interstitial spaces between rolled layers of the electrochemical cell.
17
The electrochemical cell as recited in claim 1, wherein the plurality of precursors of the polymer support system are also present within interstitial spaces between rolled layers of the electrochemical cell.
21
The battery as recited in claim 1,
20
The electrochemical cell as recited in claim 1,
comprising one or more external components at least partially surrounding the electrochemical cell.
comprising one or more external components at least partially surrounding the electrochemical cell.
22
The battery as recited in claim 21,
21
The electrochemical cell as recited in claim 20,
wherein the one or more external components are selected from the group consisting of an external casing enclosing the electrochemical cell, a module operatively coupled to the electrochemical cell, an assembly operatively coupled to the electrochemical cell, a pack enclosing the electrochemical cell, a pouch enclosing the electrochemical cell, a can enclosing the electrochemical cell, a tray operatively coupled to the electrochemical cell, a pan operatively coupled to the electrochemical cell, and combinations thereof.
wherein the one or more external components are selected from the group consisting of an external casing enclosing the electrochemical cell, a module operatively coupled to the electrochemical cell, an assembly operatively coupled to the electrochemical cell, a pack enclosing the electrochemical cell, a pouch enclosing the electrochemical cell, a can enclosing the electrochemical cell, a tray operatively coupled to the electrochemical cell, a pan operatively coupled to the electrochemical cell, and combinations thereof;
23
The battery as recited in claim 22, wherein the assembly comprises: a parallel assembly, an in-series assembly, or a cell-to-chassis assembly.
21
and wherein the assembly comprises: a parallel assembly, an in-series assembly, or a cell-to-chassis assembly.
24
The battery as recited in claim 21, wherein the one or more external components are optically transparent.
22
The electrochemical cell as recited in claim 20, wherein the one or more external components are optically transparent.
25
The battery as recited in claim 21, wherein the one or more external components exclude metallic materials.
23
The electrochemical cell as recited in claim 20, wherein the one or more external components exclude metallic materials.
26
The battery as recited in claim 21, wherein the one or more external components comprise at least one metallic material.
24
The electrochemical cell as recited in claim 20, wherein the one or more external components comprise at least one non-metallic material.
Therefore, application claims 29, 27, 2. 11. 16-17, and 20-24 of Baucom are in essence a “species” of the generic invention of pending application claims 1-2, 10-11, 14-15, and 19-26 respectively. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/07/2023, 10/18/2023, 12/14/2023, 02/16/2024, 07/12/2024, 09/26/2024, 01/15/2025, 03/04/2026, and 05/12/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: "320". Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0036], line 4, “anode 104” should be “anode active material layer 104”.
Paragraph [0072], line 2, “continuous polymer network 116” should be “continuous polymeric network 116”.
Paragraph [0073], lines 4 and 5, “continuous polymer network 116” should be “continuous polymeric network 116”.
Paragraph [0074], line 5, “continuous polymer network 116” should be “continuous polymeric network 116”.
Paragraph [0082], line 2, “continuous polymer network 116” should be “continuous polymeric network 116”.
Paragraph [0083], line 4, “continuous polymer network 116” should be “continuous polymeric network 116”.
Paragraph [0120], line 2, “continuous polymer network 116” should be “continuous polymeric network 116”.
Paragraph [0124], line 1, “polymer support system 116” should be “continuous polymeric network 116”.
Paragraph [0124], line 1, “continuous network of precursors of a polymer support system 116a” should be “continuous network of polymeric precursors”.
Paragraph [0125], line 3, “continuous network of precursors of a polymer support system 116a” should be “continuous network of polymeric precursors 116a”.
Paragraph [0128], line 3, “continuous polymer network 116” should be “continuous polymeric network 116”.
Paragraph [0139], line 7, “continuous networks of precursors of polymeric network(s) 116a” should be “continuous network of polymeric precursors 116a”.
Paragraph [0146], line 3, “continuous polymer network 116” should be “continuous polymeric network 116”.
Paragraph [0153], line 1, “continuous polymer network 116” should be “continuous polymeric network 116”.
Paragraph [0155], line 1, “continuous polymer network 116” should be “continuous polymeric network 116”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “substantially non-metallic protective mechanism for: mitigating or preventing mechanical damage to the electrochemical cell; or mitigating or preventing electrical damage to the electrochemical cell” in claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20 and their dependent claims.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 14-15 are 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 the limitation "the chemical cell" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear whether this was intended to be the same as “electrochemical cell” previously recited, or another separate and distinct chemical cell. For purposes of this Office Action, it will be assumed that this was intended to be the same electrochemical cell, as indicated by claim 1.
Claims 15 depends on claim 14, therefore can include similar deficiencies.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, 14-15 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 20220384908 A1; hereinafter “Jang”), in view of Wada et al. (US 20200321161 A1; hereinafter “Wada”).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Jang discloses a battery (lithium secondary battery; [0013]), comprising: an electrochemical cell (a cathode, an anode, and a thermally stable polymer composite separator; [0013]); and a substantially non-metallic protective mechanism (polymer composite separator (ion-conducting membrane); [0013]) for: preventing electrical damage to the electrochemical cell (preventing Li metal dendrite-induced internal short circuit; [0011]).
Jang fails to disclose that a total weight of the battery is at least about 1% less than a total weight of an otherwise equivalent battery including a substantially metallic protective mechanism for mitigating or preventing the mechanical damage or the electrical damage.
Wada teaches a polyethylene microporous film having a thickness of 30.0 μm and a density of 0.63 g/cm3 [0190]. Further, Wada teaches a separator with a base material of 70% by mass of lyocell fibers were beaten and mixed with 30% by mass of PET fibers [0188], and an aluminum oxide powder was applied to both surfaces of the base material and dried to obtain a separator having a thickness of 35.0 μm and a density of 0.81 g/cm3 [0192]. Considering the separator with aluminum oxide as a substantially metallic protective mechanism and the separator with polyethylene as a substantially non-metallic protective mechanism, and both having the same volume, since they should be otherwise equivalent, their weight decrease may be calculated as follows:
81
-
63
81
x
100
=
22
%
Further, since the batteries are equivalent, the weight decrease in the separator would be the same weight decrease in the total weight of the battery.
Jang and Wada are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely secondary batteries.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to compare the separators disclosed by Wada and implement them in Jang’s protective mechanism. Doing so would result in achieving reduction in thickness while maintaining a balance among the chemical stability, the resistivity, the electrolyte solution impregnability, and the electrolyte solution retainability of the separator, and improving the shielding property thereof [0037], as suggested by Wada.
Regarding claim 4, Jang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Jang fails to disclose the battery as recited in claim 1, wherein the substantially non- metallic protective mechanism also substantially excludes ceramic materials.
Wada discloses a nonwoven fabric separator, a polyolefin-based microporous film, a separator obtained by applying an inorganic substance to the nonwoven fabric separator or the polyolefin-based microporous film, and the like are used [0007]. As the polyolefin-based microporous film separator, a polypropylene or polyethylene separator is used [0008]. Therefore, there is no ceramic mentioned in the taught embodiment.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the materials of the separator taught by Wada and implement them in the protective mechanism disclosed by Jang. Doing so would result in achieving reduction in thickness while maintaining a balance among the chemical stability, the resistivity, the electrolyte solution impregnability, and the electrolyte solution retainability of the separator, and improving the shielding property thereof [0037], as suggested by Wada.
Regarding claim 5, Jang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Jang further discloses that, in some embodiments, the inorganic material particles comprise a material selected from a transition metal oxide, aluminum oxide, silicon dioxide, transition metal sulfide, transition metal selenide, alkylated ceramic particles, metal phosphate, metal carbonate, or a combination thereof [0022]. Therefore, steel is not mentioned in the list, and aluminum is an optional component.
Regarding claim 6, Jang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Jang further discloses that the separator comprises a high-elasticity polymer that forms a mixture, blend, or semi-interpenetrating network (semi-IPN) with a lithium ion-conducting polymer [0029].
Regarding claim 7, Jang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Jang fails to disclose the battery as recited in claim 6, wherein the one or more polymers are selected from the group consisting of: polytrimethylene terephthalate, polyethersulfone, high density polyethylene, low density polyethylene, linear low density polyethylene, polypropylene, polyolefin copolymers, polystyrene, polystyrene copolymers, polythene, polyvinyl halides, polyvinyl alcohols, polytetrafluoroethylene (TEFLON(R)), polyacrylates, polymethacrylates, polyesters, polyvinylchloride, fluoropolymers, polyamides, polyamide-imides, polyether imides, polyphenylene sulfides, polysulfones, polyacetals, polycarbonates, polyphenylene oxides, polyurethanes, thermoplastic elastomers, epoxies, alkyds, melamines, phenolics, ureas, vinyl esters, epoxies, hybridized crosslinking polymers, cyanate esters, polyurethanes, acrylonitric butadiene styrene (ABS), polyacrylonitrile (PAN), ethylene vinyl alcohol, poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), polyvinyl cinnamate, polyisoprene, polyamides, polyimides, styrenic block copolymers, bitumen, nitrile rubber, polycarbonate, polyetherimide (PEI), poly(pheylene sulfide) (PPS), polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polyetherketones (PEK), and combinations thereof.
Wada discloses that as the polyolefin-based microporous film separator, a polypropylene or polyethylene separator is used [0008].
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use polyethylene in the separator as taught by Wada and implement it in the protective mechanism disclosed by Jang. Doing so would result in achieving reduction in thickness while maintaining a balance among the chemical stability, the resistivity, the electrolyte solution impregnability, and the electrolyte solution retainability of the separator, and improving the shielding property thereof [0037], as suggested by Wada.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Jang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Jang further discloses the substantially non-metallic protective mechanism comprises a continuous network (continuous layer of polymer composite; [0047]) of polymeric precursors and polymers (the polymeric precursors are polymerized to form the layer of the polymer composite separator; [0045]) extending throughout an interior volume of the electrochemical cell (this polymer composite is can be directly deposited onto a layer of anode active material, current collector or a layer of cathode active material; [0046]). Therefore, the polymeric precursors form a continuous network before the polymerization/curing step, after which they become polymers.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Jang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Jang further discloses that at least portions of the substantially non-metallic protective mechanism disposed within an interior volume of the chemical cell comprise one or more lithium ion transporting compounds (the thermally stable polymer may further comprise from 0.1% to 50% by weight of a lithium ion-conducting additive, which is different from the inorganic solid electrolyte particles; [0023]), wherein the lithium ion transporting compound is lithium trifluoromethanesulfonimide (LiTFSI) [0026].
Regarding claim 29, Jang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Jang further discloses that the invention is an approach to preventing Li metal dendrite-induced internal short circuit and thermal runaway problems in Li metal batteries, and reducing or eliminating the detrimental reactions between lithium metal and the electrolyte [0011].
Claims 11-13 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 20220384908 A1; hereinafter “Jang”), in view of Wada et al. (US 20200321161 A1; hereinafter “Wada”), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kim et al. (US 20030072993 A1; hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 11, Jang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Jang further discloses that the substantially non-metallic protective mechanism comprises one or more interpenetrating support structures (the thermally stable polymer forms a mixture, blend, copolymer, or interpenetrating network with a lithium ion-conducting polymer [0044])
Jang fails to disclose the protective system disposed in the interior volume of the electrochemical cell and mechanically coupled to an enclosure containing the electrochemical cell.
Kim teaches an electrode jelly-roll wound with two different electrodes and a separator interposed between the electrodes therein and accommodated in the can, the outer surface of the electrode jelly-roll being wound around one more turn with the separator [0017]. The electrode jelly-roll 20 is surrounded by the outermost separator 52 as it is cured [0048]. In addition, as the outermost separator 52 is surrounded by the substrate 42 of the anode 40 [0048], and the substrate 46 of the anode 40 covering the outside of the electrode jelly-roll 20 contacts the inner wall of the can [0049].
Therefore, the protective system (outer separator) is mechanically coupled to the inner wall of the can, and within the enclosure.
Jang and Kim are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely secondary batteries.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to mechanically couple the protective system disclosed by Jang, and set it up in the configuration taught by Kim. Doing so would result in forming a protective structure for the cell so that it has mechanical stability against external impacts [0055]. Further, in addition to the improvement in mechanical stability, the additional innermost and outermost turns of separator can improve the heat-dissipating capability by absorbing the heat generated from the cell to increase thereby the thermal stability of the cell [0056], as suggested by Kim.
Regarding claim 12, Jang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Jang further discloses the one or more interpenetrating support structures comprised in the substantially non-metallic protective system [0044].
Jang fails to disclose that the one or more interpenetrating support structures are mechanically coupled to the enclosure via one or more chemical anchors of the one or more interpenetrating support structures.
Kim teaches an electrode jelly-roll 2 placed in a can 1, wherein a cap assembly (not shown) is mounted on the top of the can 1 to be connected with the cathode 3 of the electrode jelly-roll 2, and the can 1 is filled with an electrolyte solution and sealed [0031]. Therefore, the examiner interprets the electrolyte solution to be chemical anchors between the separator and the can inner wall (enclosure).
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to mechanically couple the protective system disclosed by Jang, and set it up in the configuration taught by Kim. Doing so would result in forming a protective structure for the cell so that it has mechanical stability against external impacts [0055]. Further, in addition to the improvement in mechanical stability, the additional innermost and outermost turns of separator can improve the heat-dissipating capability by absorbing the heat generated from the cell to increase thereby the thermal stability of the cell [0056], as suggested by Kim.
Regarding claim 13, Jang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Jang fails to disclose the battery as recited in claim 1, wherein the substantially non-metallic protective mechanism is mechanically coupled to an anode current collector of the electrochemical cell and mechanically coupled to a cathode current collector of the electrochemical cell; and wherein portions of the substantially non-metallic protective mechanism extend along one or more continuous pathways throughout an interior volume of the electrochemical cell from the anode current collector to the cathode current collector.
Kim teaches a cathode 3 and anode 4 are formed by coating a slurry containing a cathode active material 3b and a slurry containing an anode active material 4b on both sides of respective substrates 3a and 4a, and drying, roll-pressing and cutting the substrates 3a and 3b to a predetermined size. A separator 5 is interposed between the cathode 3 and the anode 4 to prevent the cathode 3 and anode 4 from being electrically connected, and then wound in a roll [0030]. Therefore, the examiner interprets the separator (substantially non-metallic protective mechanism) is mechanically coupled to the anode and the cathode, that contain the substrates (current collectors), extending along one or more continuous pathways throughout an interior volume of the electrochemical cell (inside the can in a jelly-roll continuous pathway) from the anode current collector to the cathode current collector (via anode and cathode active materials respectively).
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to mechanically couple the protective system disclosed by Jang, and set it up in the configuration taught by Kim. Doing so would result in forming a protective structure for the cell so that it has mechanical stability against external impacts [0055]. Further, in addition to the improvement in mechanical stability, the additional innermost and outermost turns of separator can improve the heat-dissipating capability by absorbing the heat generated from the cell to increase thereby the thermal stability of the cell [0056], as suggested by Kim.
Regarding claim 17, Jang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Jang fails to disclose the battery as recited in claim 1,
Kim discloses a separator 5 is interposed between the cathode 3 and the anode 4 to prevent the cathode 3 and anode 4 from being electrically connected, and then wound in a roll [0030].
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the separator (substantially non-metallic protective mechanism) be electrically non-conductive. Doing so would result in forming a protective structure for the cell so that it has mechanical stability against external impacts [0055], as suggested by Kim.
Regarding claim 18, Jang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Jang fails to disclose the battery as recited in claim 1, wherein the substantially non-metallic protective mechanism comprises a casing or an enclosure surrounding the electrochemical cell.
Kim teaches a polyolefin-based thin film formed to surround the outer surface of an electrode jelly-roll and that may be formed of polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), or a composite of PE/PP/PE/PP [0051].
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the substantially non-metallic protective mechanism comprise a casing or an enclosure surrounding the electrochemical cell. Doing so would result in forming a protective structure for the cell so that it has mechanical stability against external impacts [0055], as suggested by Kim.
Regarding claim 19, Jang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Jang fails to disclose the battery as recited in claim 1, wherein the electrochemical cell is arranged in a jelly-roll configuration and contained within an enclosure.
Kim teaches an electrode jelly-roll 20 wound with a cathode 20, anode 40, and separator 50 therein is accommodated in a can 10; [0034].
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the electrochemical cell arranged in a jelly-roll configuration and contained within an enclosure. Doing so would result in forming a protective structure for the cell so that it has mechanical stability against external impacts [0055]. Further, in addition to the improvement in mechanical stability, the additional innermost and outermost turns of separator can improve the heat-dissipating capability by absorbing the heat generated from the cell to increase thereby the thermal stability of the cell [0056], as suggested by Kim.
Regarding claim 20, Jang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Jang fails to disclose the battery as recited in claim 19, wherein the substantially non-metallic protective mechanism is also present within interstitial spaces between rolled layers of the electrochemical cell.
Kim teaches the outermost separator 52 is wrapped around one more turn with the substrate 42 of the anode 40, which is disposed more towards the outside (more towards the exterior such as away from the center of the cell and towards the outside and the can 10 or, wound or stacked more towards the outside) than the cathode 30 rolled together with the separator 50 therebetween. [0048]
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art have the substantially non-metallic protective mechanism be also present within interstitial spaces between rolled layers of the electrochemical cell. Doing so would result in forming a protective structure for the cell so that it has mechanical stability against external impacts [0055]. Further, in addition to the improvement in mechanical stability, the additional innermost and outermost turns of separator can improve the heat-dissipating capability by absorbing the heat generated from the cell to increase thereby the thermal stability of the cell [0056], as suggested by Kim.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Jang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Jang fails to disclose the battery as recited in claim 1, comprising one or more external components at least partially surrounding the electrochemical cell, wherein the one or more external components are selected from the group consisting of an external casing enclosing the electrochemical cell, a module operatively coupled to the electrochemical cell, an assembly operatively coupled to the electrochemical cell, a pack enclosing the electrochemical cell, a pouch enclosing the electrochemical cell, a can enclosing the electrochemical cell, a tray operatively coupled to the electrochemical cell, a pan operatively coupled to the electrochemical cell, and combinations thereof.
Kim teaches an electrode jelly-roll wound with a cathode, anode, and separator therein is accommodated in a can [0034].
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to enclose the claimed jelly-roll electrochemical cell in a can. Doing so would result in forming a protective structure for the cell so that it has mechanical stability against external impacts [0055]. Further, in addition to the improvement in mechanical stability, the additional innermost and outermost turns of separator can improve the heat-dissipating capability by absorbing the heat generated from the cell to increase thereby the thermal stability of the cell [0056], as suggested by Kim.
Claim 21-22 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 20220384908 A1; hereinafter “Jang”), in view of Wada et al. (US 20200321161 A1; hereinafter “Wada”), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Schreiber et al. (US 20220399592 A1; hereinafter “Schreiber”).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Jang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Jang fails to disclose the battery as recited in claim 1, comprising one or more external components at least partially surrounding the electrochemical cell, wherein the one or more external components are selected from the group consisting of an external casing enclosing the electrochemical cell, a module operatively coupled to the electrochemical cell, an assembly operatively coupled to the electrochemical cell, a pack enclosing the electrochemical cell, a pouch enclosing the electrochemical cell, a can enclosing the electrochemical cell, a tray operatively coupled to the electrochemical cell, a pan operatively coupled to the electrochemical cell, and combinations thereof.
Schreiber teaches a plurality of battery cells that may be lithium-ion pouch cells [0016], wherein “pouch cell” is a battery cell or module that includes a pouch [0018].
Jang and Schreiber are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely secondary batteries.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select a pouch surrounding, at least partially, and enclosing the electrochemical cell as an external component. Doing so would result in achieving a substantially flexible and, alternatively or additionally, a substantially rigid pouch [0018], as suggested by Schreiber.
Regarding claims 25 and 27, Jang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Jang fails to disclose the battery as recited in claim 21, wherein the one or more external components exclude metallic materials and wherein the one or more external components comprise at least one non-metallic material.
Schreiber teaches a pouch that may be substantially rigid, and in some cases, the pouch may include a polymer, such as without limitation polyethylene, acrylic, polyester, and the like [0018].
Therefore, the pouch may just contain a polymer, that is a non-metallic material.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a pouch that includes at least one non-metallic material (polymer) and that excludes metallic materials as taught by Schreiber. Doing so would result in achieving a substantially flexible and, alternatively or additionally, a substantially rigid pouch [0018], as suggested by Schreiber.
Regarding claim 26, Jang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Jang fails to disclose the battery as recited in claim 21, wherein the one or more external components comprise at least one metallic material.
Schreiber teaches a pouch that, in some cases, may be coated with one or more coatings. For example, in some cases, the pouch may have an outer surface. In some embodiments, the outer surface may be coated with a metalizing coating, such as an aluminum or nickel containing coating [0018].
Therefore, the pouch may contain at least one metallic material.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the pouch comprise at least one metallic material. Doing so would result in electrically grounding and/or isolating the pouch, increasing pouch impermeability, resistance to high temperatures, thermal resistance (insulation), and the like [0018], as suggested by Schreiber.
Claims 23 and 28 are optional limitations that only apply to one option in claims 22 and 1 respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jang et al. (US 2022/0190346 A1) discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising a polymer composite with a cross-linked network of chains.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA N LIZARAZU whose telephone number is (571)272-9697. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 5712703879. 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.
/J.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights