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 (IDS) submitted on 09/15/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 recites "according to claim-5" and should be corrected to remove the dash. Claim 11 recites "according to claim-6" and should be corrected to remove the dash. 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 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, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto et al. (JP2003157719A) hereinafter "Morimoto" in view of Kim et al. (US 20190288333 A1) hereinafter "Kim", both cited on the IDS filed 9/15/2023. Reference is made to the enclosed machine translation of Morimoto.
Regarding claim 1, Morimoto teaches an electrolyte comprising an ionic liquid, an inorganic oxide, and a binder ([0006]-[0008]; [0011]; molten salt is considered equivalent to ionic liquid, the insulating ceramic is considered equivalent to an inorganic oxide, and the polymer is considered equivalent to a binder). Morimoto teaches wherein the electrolyte comprising an ionic liquid, an inorganic oxide, and a binder is a solid electrolyte ([0006]-[0008]; [0014]).
Morimoto does not teach wherein the binder is formed from raw materials that are a polycarbonate polyol and a polyisocyanate, and the binder includes, at an end, at least one functional group selected from the group consisting of a trialkoxysilyl group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms, an epoxy group, and an oxetanyl group.
However, Kim teaches a solid polymer electrolyte composition wherein the polymer compound is synthesized using polycarbonate diol and an isocyanate silane ([0026]; [0011]; [0036]-[0039]; [0110]-[0114]; Structural formula 1-2). Kim teaches that the solid polymer electrolyte disclosed exhibits superior mechanical properties and ionic conductivity ([0042]; [0070]; [0060]).
Morimoto teaches a solid electrolyte comprising an ionic liquid, an inorganic oxide, and a polymer binder ([0006]-[0008]; [0011]) while Kim teaches a solid polymer electrolyte composition wherein the polymer compound is synthesized using polycarbonate diol and an isocyanate silane ([0026]; [0011]; [0036]-[0039]; [0110]-[0114]; Structural formula 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the polymer taught by Morimoto with the polymer taught by Kim.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to substitute the polymer taught by Morimoto with the polymer taught by Kim to improve mechanical properties and ionic conductivity of the solid electrolyte ([0042]; [0070]; [0060]). Further, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP §2144.07).
Regarding claim 7, modified Morimoto teaches the electrolyte according to claim 1. Morimoto further teaches wherein the electrolyte comprises, as the inorganic oxide, at least one of silicon oxide or aluminum oxide ([0011]; [0027]-[0028]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Morimoto teaches the electrolyte according to claim 1. Modified Morimoto further teaches wherein a polymer binder has a weight-average molecular weight of 2,000 to 200,000 (Kim [0018]-[0069]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 9, modified Morimoto teaches the electrolyte according to claim 1. Morimoto further teaches a storage device ([0017]).
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto (JP2003157719A) in view of Kim (US 20190288333 A1), as applied above, in further view of Nishio (JP 2006252878 A), cited on the IDS filed 9/15/2023. Reference is made to the enclosed machine translation of Morimoto and Nishio.
Regarding claim 2, modified Morimoto teaches the electrolyte according to claim 1. Morimoto contemplates the inclusion of additional components as long as properties of the electrolyte are not impaired ([0016]).
Modified Morimoto does not teach wherein the electrolyte further comprises: an additive different from the inorganic oxide, wherein the additive is at least one of a boron compound or an aluminum compound.
However, Nishio teaches a polymer solid electrolyte composition comprising an ion-conductive composition and an alkali metal salt ([0017]-[0019]) wherein the ion-conductive composition contains an ion-conductive polymer, a metal oxide filler, and a group 13 element such as boron-containing or aluminum-containing compounds ([0012]; [0016]; [0055]); [0057]. Nishio teaches that the group 13 element has an anion capturing function which improves the cation transport number of the ion-conductive composition ([0021]; [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the electrolyte taught by modified Morimoto by including a boron or aluminum containing compound as taught by Nishio.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the electrolyte taught by modified Morimoto by including a boron or aluminum containing compound as taught by Nishio to improve cation transport ([0021]; [0026]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Morimoto in view of Nishio teaches the electrolyte according to claim 2.
Nishio further teaches wherein the additive is the boron compound ([0016]), and a number of moles of the boron compound relative to 1 kg of the electrolyte is 0.55 mol/kg or less ([0056]; [0059]1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the boron containing compound taught by Nishio in the amount taught by Nishio. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 4, modified Morimoto in view of Nishio teaches the electrolyte according to claim 2.
Nishio further teaches wherein the additive is the aluminum compound ([0055]), and a number of moles of the aluminum compound relative to 1 kg of the electrolyte is 0.05 mol/kg or less ([0056]; [0059]2).
Claim(s) 5-6, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto (JP2003157719A) in view of Kim (US 20190288333 A1), as applied above, in further view of Nishio (JP 2006252878 A) and Liu et al. (US 20220140389 A1) hereinafter "Liu". Reference is made to the enclosed machine translation of Morimoto and Nishio.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, modified Morimoto in view of Nishio teaches the electrolyte according to claim 2. Nishio teaches the use of trialkyl borates as specific boron-containing compounds ([0059]).
While Nishio does not explicitly teach the use of a borate ester such as trimethyl borate or triethyl borate, these are known types of trialkyl borates.
Further, Liu teaches a solid electrolyte comprising a polymer, a lithium salt, an inorganic filler, and an aprotic organic solvent additive where the additive may be selected as trimethyl borate (abstract; [0010]-[0014]; [0020]; [0033]). Liu teaches that using an additive such as trimethyl borate can complex with lithium ions and cooperate with anion cluster network to form a large number of lithium-ion transmission channels thus greatly improving the ionic conductivity of the polymer electrolyte at room temperature ([0032]-[0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified modified Morimoto in view of Nishio by selecting trimethyl borate as the boron-containing compound as taught by Liu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have further modified modified Morimoto in view of Nishio by selecting trimethyl borate as the boron-containing compound as taught by Liu to improve ionic conductivity ([0032]-[[34]).
Regarding claims 10-11, modified Morimoto in view of Nishio and Liu teaches the electrolyte according to claims 5-6. Morimoto further teaches a storage device ([0017]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
1 The boron containing compound is added at 0.1-15 wt% based on the electrolyte composition. In the case where the boron containing compound is selected as trialkyl borate or triethoxyboroxine, for example, wt% can be converted to mol/kg.
Example:
0.5
w
t
%
=
0.5
g
t
r
i
a
l
k
y
l
b
o
r
a
t
e
100
g
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
l
y
t
e
;
0
.
5
g
t
r
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
b
o
r
a
t
e
100
g
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
l
y
t
e
×
1
m
o
l
t
r
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
b
o
r
a
t
e
103.92
g
t
r
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
b
o
r
a
t
e
=
0.048
m
o
l
t
r
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
b
o
r
a
t
e
k
g
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
l
y
t
e
2 The boron containing compound is added at 0.1-15 wt% based on the electrolyte composition. In the case where the boron containing compound is selected as trialkyl borate or triethoxyboroxine, for example, wt% can be converted to mol/kg.
Example:
0.5
w
t
%
=
0.5
g
t
r
i
a
l
k
y
l
b
o
r
a
t
e
100
g
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
l
y
t
e
;
0
.
5
g
t
r
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
b
o
r
a
t
e
100
g
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
l
y
t
e
×
1
m
o
l
t
r
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
b
o
r
a
t
e
103.92
g
t
r
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
b
o
r
a
t
e
=
0.048
m
o
l
t
r
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
b
o
r
a
t
e
k
g
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
l
y
t
e