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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/21/2023, 09/26,2024, 09/26/2024 (2), 05/27/20205, and 07/28/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 27, 28, 33-35, 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qiu et al (High Conductive Composite Polymer Electrolyte via in Situ UV-Curing for All-Solid-State Lithium Ion Batteries Ziwen Qiu, Chang Liu, Jing Xin, Qian Wang, Jiajie Wu, Wenli Wang, Jingjing Zhou, Yang Liu, Bingkun Guo, and Siqi Shi ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2019 7 (11), 9875-9880):
Regarding claim 27, Qiu et al teaches all of the following elements:
A polymer solid electrolyte comprising: (“In this work, we investigate an in situ building method of a solid electrolyte, which constructs a composite electrolyte on the cathode by UV-curing and reduces the interfacial impedance by 69.1%.” Qiu et al, abstract and “Then, the solid polymer electrolytes (SPEs) are considered to be another promising candidate for solid-state lithium ion batteries due to the advantages of excellent mechanical and interfacial properties” Qiu et al, page 1 paragraph 2 lines 2-4.)
a) an electrolyte salt, and (“LiTFSI and PC/acetonitrile were mixed with mass weight ratio = 6:4 and stirred continuously over 1 h; then PEO with 30 wt % (Mn ∼ 300 000) was added and stirred continuously overnight to produce solution A.” Qiu et al page 6 paragraph 2 lines 1-4. In this case, LiTFSI is the electrolyte salt)
b) a crosslinked polymer with a heterogenous or disordered polymer network obtained from a crosslinking reaction of a composition comprising one or more crosslinkers, wherein at least one crosslinker has three or more polymerizable or crosslinkable terminals and the crosslinker has a formula selected from the group consisting of:
PNG
media_image1.png
134
419
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R4 and R5 are independently selected from the group consisting of:
PNG
media_image2.png
143
359
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein R1, R2, R3, and R6 are each independently selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, methyl, ethyl, phenyl, methyl phenyl, benzyl, acryl, epoxy ethyl, isocyanate, cyclic carbonate, lactone, lactam, and vinyl, wherein n is an integer between 0 and 50,000 and * indicates a point of attachment. (Qiu et al teaches the usage of a crosslinked polymer which meets all of the limitations of claim 1, labeled as A3 and A4, see figure S1. “The monomers with 3 arms, trimethylol-propane-ethoxylatetriacrylate, and with 4 arms, pentaerythritol tetracrylate, are labeled as A3 and A4 (Figure S1),” Qiu et al page 3 paragraph 2 lines 1-3. By forming a crosslinked polymer solid electrolyte analogous to that claimed in claim 27, the presence of a heterogenous or disordered polymer network would be an inherent property, as it is the same material. Thus, despite not explicitly mentioning the properties of the network, the solid polymer electrolyte of Qiu et al would meet all of the limitations of claim 27.)
PNG
media_image3.png
403
477
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 28, Qiu et al teaches all of the following elements:
The electrolyte of claim 27, wherein the crosslinked polymer is not over- crosslinked. (In paragraph [0076] of the instant specification, it is stated that having the weight fraction of initiator under 5.0% is necessary to avoid over-crosslinking. In Qiu et al, HMPP is used as the initiator “Moreover, no characteristic peaks of propylene carbonate (PC) solvent and 2-hydroxy-2-methyl-1-phenyl-1- propanone (HMPP) can be observed after polymerization in the FTIR spectra of Figure S2, indicating that both solvent and initiator are removed.” Qiu et al page 3 paragraph 2 lines 15-19. In the experimental section of Qiu et al it is stated that 0.02g HMPP is used with 6.0g TPTA, which is then mixed with the LiTFSI and PC/acetonitrile solution. Even in just the HMPP/TPTA solution, there would be well below 5% HMPP present by weight, and thus over-crosslinking would be avoided in the method of Qiu et al.)
Regarding claim 33, Qiu et al teaches all of the following elements:
The electrolyte of claim 27, wherein the electrolyte exhibits an improved capacity retention due to a more heterogenous or disordered network in comparison to that synthesized from a linear crosslinker. (Given that the electrolyte of Qiu et al meets the limitations required by claim 27, it would inherently have improved capacity retention compared to that synthesized from a linear crosslinker. Additionally, instant specification [0096] states that the capacity retention can be “In addition, in some embodiments, the electrochemical device has a capacity retention of at least 41%, at least 46%, at least 51%, at least 56%, at least 62%, at least 67%, at least 72%, at least 77%, at least 82%, at least 87%, at least 90.7%, at least 92%, at least 95%, at least 97%, at least 99.2%, at least 99.3%, at least 99.5% or the like when a discharging current rate of 0.5 C being used at 25°C.” The device of Qiu et al has a capacity retention of ~82% [see abstract], and therefore would meet the limitations of required capacity retention as required by the instant specification.)
Regarding claim 34, Qiu et al teaches all of the following elements:
The electrolyte of claim 27, wherein the electrolyte salt comprises a lithium salt selected from the group consisting of lithium perchlorate (LiClO4), lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6), lithiumborofluoride (LiBF4), lithium hexafluoroarsenide (LiAsF6), lithium trifluoro-metasulfonate (LiCF3SO3), bis- trifluoromethyl sulfonylimide lithium (LiN(CF3SO2)2), lithium bis(oxalato)borate (LiBOB), lithium oxalyldifluoroborate (LiBF2C204), lithium nitrate(LiNO3), Li- fluoroalkyl-phosphates (LiPF3(CF2CF3)3), lithium bisperfluoro-ethysulfonylimide (LiBETI), lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulphonyl) imide, lithium bis(fuorosulphonyl)imide, lithium trifluoromethanesulfonimide (LiTFSI), lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI), lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate (LiDFOB), LiC(CF3SO2)3, LiF, LiCl, LiBr, LiI, Li2SO4, Li3PO4, Li2CO3, LiOH, lithium acetate, lithium trifluoromethyl acetate and lithium oxalate. (“LiTFSI and PC/acetonitrile were mixed with mass weight ratio = 6:4 and stirred continuously over 1 h; then PEO with 30 wt % (Mn ∼ 300 000) was added and stirred continuously overnight to produce solution A.” Qiu et al page 6 paragraph 2 lines 1-4. In this case, LiTFSI is the electrolyte salt)
Regarding claim 35, Qiu et al teaches all of the following elements:
The electrolyte of claim 27, wherein the one or more crosslinkers are crosslinked in the presence of an initiator, under UV light, or at an elevated temperature. (“the mechanism should be described as HMPP produces the phenyl and hydroxyl radical in UV-curing; then the radicals react with propenyls to generate addition products and form the polymers.” Qiu et al page 3 paragraph 2 lines 11-15)
Regarding claim 46, Qiu et al teaches all of the following elements:
A polymer solid electrolyte comprising: (“In this work, we investigate an in situ building method of a solid electrolyte, which constructs a composite electrolyte on the cathode by UV-curing and reduces the interfacial impedance by 69.1%.” Qiu et al, abstract and “Then, the solid polymer electrolytes (SPEs) are considered to be another promising candidate for solid-state lithium ion batteries due to the advantages of excellent mechanical and interfacial properties” Qiu et al, page 1 paragraph 2 lines 2-4.)
a) an electrolyte salt, and (“LiTFSI and PC/acetonitrile were mixed with mass weight ratio = 6:4 and stirred continuously over 1 h; then PEO with 30 wt % (Mn ∼ 300 000) was added and stirred continuously overnight to produce solution A.” Qiu et al page 6 paragraph 2 lines 1-4. In this case, LiTFSI is the electrolyte salt)
b) a crosslinked polymer with topological defects synthesized from one or more crosslinkers,
wherein at least one crosslinker has three or more polymerizable or crosslinkable terminals,
wherein at least one crosslinker has three or more polymerizable or crosslinkable terminals and the crosslinker has a formula selected from the group consisting of:
PNG
media_image4.png
136
433
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein R4 and R5 are independently selected from the group consisting of:
PNG
media_image5.png
87
341
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
76
366
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein R1, R2, R3, and R6 are each independently selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, methyl, ethyl, phenyl, methyl phenyl, benzyl, acryl, epoxy ethyl, isocyanate, cyclic carbonate, lactone, lactam, and vinyl, wherein n is an integer between 0 and 50,000 and * indicates a point of attachment. (Qiu et al teaches the usage of a crosslinked polymer which meets all of the limitations of claim 1, labeled as A3 and A4, see figure S1. “The monomers with 3 arms, trimethylol-propane-ethoxylatetriacrylate, and with 4 arms, pentaerythritol tetracrylate, are labeled as A3 and A4 (Figure S1),” Qiu et al page 3 paragraph 2 lines 1-3. By forming a crosslinked polymer solid electrolyte analogous to that claimed in claim 46, the presence of topological defects would be an inherent property, as it is the same material. Thus, despite not explicitly mentioning topological defects, the solid polymer electrolyte of Qiu et al would meet all of the limitations of claim 46.)
PNG
media_image3.png
403
477
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 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) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu et al (High Conductive Composite Polymer Electrolyte via in Situ UV-Curing for All-Solid-State Lithium Ion Batteries Ziwen Qiu, Chang Liu, Jing Xin, Qian Wang, Jiajie Wu, Wenli Wang, Jingjing Zhou, Yang Liu, Bingkun Guo, and Siqi Shi ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2019 7 (11), 9875-9880)
Regarding claim 36, Qiu et al teaches all of the following elements. Specifically, Qiu et al teaches a solid polymer electrolyte for use in an electrochemical device, and therefore it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to use the solid polymer electrolyte of Qiu et al in an electrochemical device:
An electrochemical device, comprising the electrolyte of claim 27. (“On the basis of the data above, it is believed that the in situ UV-cured composite polymer electrolyte can present superior electrochemical performances in all-solid-state batteries (Table S2) 45−47 and would be a promising solid polymer electrolyte for high energy lithium batteries” Qiu et al page 4 paragraph 1 lines 9-15. Given that Qiu et al states that the intended use its solid polymer electrolyte is to be used in an electrochemical device, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to make an electrochemical device comprising the electrolyte of Qiu et al.)
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu et al (High Conductive Composite Polymer Electrolyte via in Situ UV-Curing for All-Solid-State Lithium Ion Batteries Ziwen Qiu, Chang Liu, Jing Xin, Qian Wang, Jiajie Wu, Wenli Wang, Jingjing Zhou, Yang Liu, Bingkun Guo, and Siqi Shi ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2019 7 (11), 9875-9880) in view of Lee (US 20180034101 A1)
Regarding claim 29, Qiu et al teaches all of the elements of claim 27, as shown above. Qiu et al is silent on the following elements of claim 29:
The electrolyte of claim 28 wherein the crosslinked polymer is obtained from:
a composition comprising the one or more crosslinkers with a concentration of no less than 0.1wt% and no more than 30wt%; or
a composition comprising the crosslinker with three or more polymerizable or crosslinkable terminals at a concentration of no less than 0.1wt% and no more than 20 wt%.
However, Lee teaches all of the elements of claim 29 that are not found in Qiu et al, specifically, Lee teaches the desired quantity in weight percent of the crosslinking precursors:
The electrolyte of claim 28 wherein the crosslinked polymer is obtained from:
a composition comprising the one or more crosslinkers with a concentration of no less than 0.1wt% and no more than 30wt%; or (“An exemplary embodiment of the present invention provides a gel polymer electrolyte including a multi-component crosslinked polymer matrix; a dissociable salt; and an organic solvent, wherein a content of the multi-component crosslinked polymer matrix is 1 to 50 wt % “ Lee [0007])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 1-50 wt% of the crosslinking composition overlaps the claimed range of 0.1-30% for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
b. a composition comprising the crosslinker with three or more polymerizable or crosslinkable terminals at a concentration of no less than 0.1wt% and no more than 20 wt%.
Lee is considered to be analogous to Qiu et al because it is within the same field of solid polymer electrolytes for electrochemical devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solid polymer electrolyte of Qiu et al to obtain the crosslinked polymer from a composition of 1-50 wt% crosslinked polymer precursor in order to produce a polymer electrolyte with optimal adhesion, stabilization, and mechanical properties, while avoiding negative effects (“In the case in which the content of the multi-component crosslinked polymer matrix satisfies this range, the above-mentioned characteristics, that is, excellent adhesion with the electrode, stabilization of the electrolyte-electrode interface due to the excellent adhesion, excellent mechanical properties and electrochemical properties, and the like, may be exhibited.” Lee [0053] and “However, when the content of the multi-component crosslinked polymer matrix in the gel polymer electrolyte is more than 50 wt %, contents of the organic solvent and the dissociable salt are relatively decreased, respectively.” Lee [0054])
Claim(s) 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu et al (High Conductive Composite Polymer Electrolyte via in Situ UV-Curing for All-Solid-State Lithium Ion Batteries Ziwen Qiu, Chang Liu, Jing Xin, Qian Wang, Jiajie Wu, Wenli Wang, Jingjing Zhou, Yang Liu, Bingkun Guo, and Siqi Shi ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2019 7 (11), 9875-9880) in view of Park (US 20240136567 A1)
Regarding claim 30, Qiu et al teaches all of the elements of claim 27, as shown above. Qiu et al is silent on the following elements of claim 30:
The electrolyte of claim 27, wherein at least one of the one or more crosslinkers has an electron-donating group, which promotes ion transport in the electrolyte.
However, Park teaches all of the elements of claim 30 that are not found in Qiu et al. Specifically, Park teaches the use of diurethane dimethacrylate as a crosslinkable precursor, which is the same as used to provide an electron withdrawing group in the instantly claimed invention (instant spec [0063]), and thus meets the limitations of claim 30 (as claim 31 as well):
The electrolyte of claim 27, wherein at least one of the one or more crosslinkers has an electron-donating group, which promotes ion transport in the electrolyte. (“As the crosslinkable precursor, the urethane-containing polyfunctional acrylic monomer may include diurethane dimethacrylate, diurethane diacrylate, or a combination thereof.” Park [0049])
Park is considered to be analogous to Qiu et al because it is within the same field of solid polymer electrolytes used in electrochemical devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solid polymer electrolyte of Qiu et al to use the crosslinking precursor of Park, which contains an electron withdrawing group, in order to produce a solid polymer electrolyte having high elasticity and maintaining high mechanical strength (“Since the urethane-containing polyfunctional acrylic monomer has high mechanical strength and elasticity by including a urethane moiety, when a copolymer structure is formed using the urethane-containing polyfunctional acrylic monomer and a polyfunctional block copolymer, an organic-inorganic composite solid polymer electrolyte having elasticity and maintaining the high mechanical strength may be prepared.” Park [0052])
By modifying Qiu et al with the UDMA crosslinker of Park, the additional limitations of claims 31 would be met without requiring any further modification or motivation.
Regarding claim 31, Qiu et al teaches all of the elements of claim 30, as shown above. Qiu et al is silent on the following elements of claim 31:
The electrolyte of claim 30, wherein the electron-donating group is an amide.
However, Park teaches all of the elements of claim 31 that are not found in Qiu et al. Specifically, Park teaches the use of diurethane dimethacrylate as a crosslinkable precursor, which is the same as used to provide an amide group in the instantly claimed invention, and thus meets the limitations of claim 31:
The electrolyte of claim 30, wherein the electron-donating group is an amide. (“As the crosslinkable precursor, the urethane-containing polyfunctional acrylic monomer may include diurethane dimethacrylate, diurethane diacrylate, or a combination thereof.” Park [0049])
Regarding claim 32, Qiu et al teaches all of the elements of claim 27, as shown above. Qiu et al is silent on the following elements of claim 32:
The electrolyte of claim 27, wherein the crosslinked polymer is free of poly (ethylene oxide) chain.
However, Park teaches all of the elements of claim 32 that are not found in Qiu et al. Specifically, Park teaches a crosslinked polymer that is free of PEO:
The electrolyte of claim 27, wherein the crosslinked polymer is free of poly (ethylene oxide) chain. (“Typically, PEO is a commonly known ion-conductive polymer but has a room-temperature ion conductivity of about 10.sup.−7 S/cm and thus cannot be used in a battery utilized at room temperature. The electrolyte is a polymer electrolyte that may be operated at a high temperature of 60° C. or higher, which is a glass transition temperature (Tg) of PEO.” Park [0006])
Park and Qiu et al are considered analogous for the reasons provided above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Qiu et al to not include PEO in the final solid polymer electrolyte in order to be able to have a battery that can be operated at a high temperature, which would be desirable in situations in which the battery needs to be used in a high temperature environment (Typically, PEO is a commonly known ion-conductive polymer but has a room-temperature ion conductivity of about 10.sup.−7 S/cm and thus cannot be used in a battery utilized at room temperature. The electrolyte is a polymer electrolyte that may be operated at a high temperature of 60° C. or higher, which is a glass transition temperature (Tg) of PEO.” Park [0006]).
Claim(s) 37-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu et al (High Conductive Composite Polymer Electrolyte via in Situ UV-Curing for All-Solid-State Lithium Ion Batteries Ziwen Qiu, Chang Liu, Jing Xin, Qian Wang, Jiajie Wu, Wenli Wang, Jingjing Zhou, Yang Liu, Bingkun Guo, and Siqi Shi ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2019 7 (11), 9875-9880) in view of Tabuchi (US 20160006075 A1).
Regarding claim 37, Qiu et al teaches all of the elements of claim 36, as shown above. Qiu et al is silent on the following elements of claim 37:
The electrochemical device of claim 36, wherein the electrochemical device passes a short circuit test with an external resistance of 20 mQ without causing any ruptures.
However, Tabuchi teaches all of the elements of claim 37 that are not found in Qiu et al. Specifically, by teaching an electrochemical device with the same anode, cathode, separator, and modifying it with the solid polymer electrolyte of Qui et al, an electrochemical device that is analogous to that of the instantly claimed invention would be produced, and therefore, it would have the same characteristics as that of the claimed invention, such as the ability to pass a short circuit test with an external resistance of 20 mQ:
The electrochemical device of claim 36, wherein the electrochemical device passes a short circuit test with an external resistance of 20 mQ without causing any ruptures. (as described below in claims 39-45, the electrochemical device of Tabuchi teaches an identical anode and cathode to that of the instantly claimed invention. Additionally, it would be obvious to incorporate a separator into the battery as that is commonly known in the field of battery/electrochemical device production. By combining this with the solid polymer electrolyte of Qiu et al, which is the same as taught by the instantly claimed invention, an identical electrochemical device would be created, and therefore would pass the short circuit test. The ability to pass the short circuit test would be an inherent property of the material, and therefore does not need to be explicitly states in the prior art. See MPEP 2112. II. or Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., for case law regarding the fact that an inherent feature need not be recognized at the relevant time in order for it to still anticipate the feature, which is later recognized).
Tabuchi is considered to be analogous to Qiu et al because they are both within the same field of solid polymer electrolytes for use in electrochemical devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qiu et al to use the solid polymer electrolyte of Qiu et al in the electrochemical device of Tabuchi, as this would only require the simple substitution of one solid polymer electrolyte for another, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Since the electrochemical device of Tabuchi also meets the limitations of claims 38-45, the limitations of those claims would also be met without requiring any further modification or motivation.
The same inherency argument is used for claim 38.
Regarding claim 38, Qiu et al teaches all of the elements of claim 36, as shown above. Qiu et al is silent on the following elements of claim 38:
The electrochemical device of claim 36, wherein the electrochemical device passes a short circuit test with an external resistance of 5 mQ without causing any ruptures.
However, Tabuchi teaches all of the elements of claim 38 that are not found in Qiu et al. Specifically, by teaching an electrochemical device with the same anode, cathode, separator, and modifying it with the solid polymer electrolyte of Qui et al, an electrochemical device that is analogous to that of the instantly claimed invention would be produced, and therefore, it would have the same characteristics as that of the claimed invention, such as the ability to pass a short circuit test with an external resistance of 5 mQ:
The electrochemical device of claim 36, wherein the electrochemical device passes a short circuit test with an external resistance of 5 mQ without causing any ruptures. (as described below in claims 39-45, the electrochemical device of Tabuchi teaches an identical anode and cathode to that of the instantly claimed invention. Additionally, it would be obvious to incorporate a separator into the battery as that is commonly known in the field of battery/electrochemical device production. By combining this with the solid polymer electrolyte of Qiu et al, which is the same as taught by the instantly claimed invention, an identical electrochemical device would be created, and therefore would pass the short circuit test. The ability to pass the short circuit test would be an inherent property of the material, and therefore does not need to be explicitly states in the prior art. See MPEP 2112. II. or Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., for case law regarding the fact that an inherent feature need not be recognized at the relevant time in order for it to still anticipate the feature, which is later recognized).
Regarding claim 39, Qiu et al teaches all of the elements of claim 36, as shown above. Qiu et al is silent on the following elements of claim 39:
The electrochemical device of claim 36, wherein the electrochemical device is anode-free or comprises an anode.
However, Tabuchi teaches all of the elements of claim 39 that are not found in Qiu et al. Specifically, Tabuchi teaches a secondary battery containing a solid polymer electrolyte and all of the additional limitations of claim 39:
The electrochemical device of claim 36, wherein the electrochemical device is anode-free or comprises an anode. (“The negative electrode material comprises a metal electrode substrate as an electrode material substrate, and a negative electrode active material on the metal electrode substrate, and a binder of satisfactorily exchanging ions with an electrolyte layer, and fixing an electroconductive aid and negative electrode active material to the metal substrate.” Tabuchi [0063])
Regarding claim 40, Qiu et al teaches all of the elements of claim 38, as shown above. Qiu et al is silent on the following elements of claim 40:
The electrochemical device of claim 38, wherein the anode is a carbon anode, Li anode, Si anode, alloy anode, Li4Ti5O12, or made from conversion anode materials, wherein the carbon anode comprises graphite, soft carbon, hard carbon, or combinations of thereof.
However, Tabuchi teaches all of the elements of claim 40 that are not found in Qiu et al. Specifically, Tabuchi teaches a secondary battery containing a solid polymer electrolyte and all of the additional limitations of claim 40:
The electrochemical device of claim 38, wherein the anode is a carbon anode, Li anode, Si anode, alloy anode, Li4Ti5O12, or made from conversion anode materials, wherein the carbon anode comprises graphite, soft carbon, hard carbon, or combinations of thereof. (“The negative electrode active material used in the present invention is powder comprising a carbon material (for example, natural graphite, artificial graphite and amorphous carbon) which have a structure (a porous structure) capable of occlusion and release of an alkali metal ion such as a lithium ion; or a metal, such as lithium, an aluminum compound, a tin compound, a silicon compound capable of occlusion and release of an alkali metal ion such as a lithium ion.” Tabuchi [0064])
Regarding claim 41, Qiu et al teaches all of the elements of claim 40, as shown above. Qiu et al is silent on the following elements of claim 41:
The electrochemical device of claim 40, wherein the Li anode comprises Li metal foil, Li metal on Cu, Ni, or stainless steel.
However, Tabuchi teaches all of the elements of claim 41 that are not found in Qiu et al. Specifically, Tabuchi teaches a secondary battery containing a solid polymer electrolyte and all of the additional limitations of claim 41:
The electrochemical device of claim 40, wherein the Li anode comprises Li metal foil, Li metal on Cu, Ni, or stainless steel. (“The negative electrode active material used in the present invention is powder comprising a carbon material (for example, natural graphite, artificial graphite and amorphous carbon) which have a structure (a porous structure) capable of occlusion and release of an alkali metal ion such as a lithium ion; or a metal, such as lithium, an aluminum compound, a tin compound, a silicon compound capable of occlusion and release of an alkali metal ion such as a lithium ion.” Tabuchi [0064])
Regarding claim 42, Qiu et al teaches all of the elements of claim 40, as shown above. Qiu et al is silent on the following elements of claim 42:
The electrochemical device of claim 40, wherein the Si anode comprises Si, Si/Carbon composite, SiOx(0<x<2), SiOx(0x<2)/carbon composite or a combination thereof, the Alloy anode comprises Sn, Sn02, Sb, Al, Mg, Bi, In, As, Zn, Ga, B, or a combination thereof.
However, Tabuchi teaches all of the elements of claim 42 that are not found in Qiu et al. Specifically, Tabuchi teaches a secondary battery containing a solid polymer electrolyte and all of the additional limitations of claim 42:
The electrochemical device of claim 40, wherein the Si anode comprises Si, Si/Carbon composite, SiOx(0<x<2), SiOx(0x<2)/carbon composite or a combination thereof, the Alloy anode comprises Sn, Sn02, Sb, Al, Mg, Bi, In, As, Zn, Ga, B, or a combination thereof. (“The negative electrode active material used in the present invention is powder comprising a carbon material (for example, natural graphite, artificial graphite and amorphous carbon) which have a structure (a porous structure) capable of occlusion and release of an alkali metal ion such as a lithium ion; or a metal, such as lithium, an aluminum compound, a tin compound, a silicon compound capable of occlusion and release of an alkali metal ion such as a lithium ion.” Tabuchi [0064]. In this case, the silicon compound and aluminum compound would meet the limitations of claim 42. At a minimum, the option of having a graphite anode would also meet the limitations of claim 42, as claim 40 only requires one of a carbon, lithium, silicon, alloy, Li4Ti5O2, or conversion anode.)
Regarding claim 43, Qiu et al teaches all of the elements of claim 40, as shown above. Qiu et al is silent on the following elements of claim 43:
The electrochemical device of claim 40, wherein the conversion anode materials comprise MaXb, M is Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, or Cu, X is 0, S, Se, F, N, or P, a and b are respectively 1 to 4.
However, Tabuchi teaches all of the elements of claim 43 that are not found in Qiu et al. Specifically, Tabuchi teaches a secondary battery containing a solid polymer electrolyte and all of the additional limitations of claim 43:
The electrochemical device of claim 40, wherein the conversion anode materials comprise MaXb, M is Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, or Cu, X is 0, S, Se, F, N, or P, a and b are respectively 1 to 4. (The limitation of claim 40 only requires one of a carbon, lithium, silicon, alloy, Li4Ti5O2, or conversion anode. Therefore, by teaching the use of a carbon anode comprising graphite, there need not be a conversion anode present, and Tabuchi teaches an anode that meets both the limitations of claim 40 and 43.)
Regarding claim 44, Qiu et al teaches all of the elements of claim 36, as shown above. Qiu et al is silent on the following elements of claim 44:
The electrochemical device of claim 36, wherein the electrochemical device comprises a cathode.
However, Tabuchi teaches all of the elements of claim 44 that are not found in Qiu et al. Specifically, Tabuchi teaches a secondary battery containing a solid polymer electrolyte and all of the additional limitations of claim 44:
The electrochemical device of claim 36, wherein the electrochemical device comprises a cathode. (“Embodiments of the present invention are as follows: [1] A positive electrode having a surface of a positive electrode material covered with a solid polymer electrolyte” Tabuchi [0014])
Regarding claim 45, Qiu et al teaches all of the elements of claim 44, as shown above. Qiu et al is silent on the following elements of claim 45:
The electrochemical device of claim 44, wherein the cathode comprises an electroactive material selected from the group consisting of lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide, lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide, lithium titanate, metallic lithium, lithium metal oxide, lithium manganese oxide, lithium cobalt oxide, and lithium iron phosphate.
However, Tabuchi teaches all of the elements of claim 45 that are not found in Qiu et al. Specifically, Tabuchi teaches a secondary battery containing a solid polymer electrolyte and all of the additional limitations of claim 45:
The electrochemical device of claim 44, wherein the cathode comprises an electroactive material selected from the group consisting of lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide, lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide, lithium titanate, metallic lithium, lithium metal oxide, lithium manganese oxide, lithium cobalt oxide, and lithium iron phosphate. (“Among the above-mentioned preferable positive electrode active materials, specific examples of more preferable positive electrode active material include … Li2xCobMncNi1-b-cO2” Tabuchi [0062]) electrolyte of Qiu et al would meet all of the limitations of claim 46.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
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, NICHOLAS SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OLATUNJI A GODO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752