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 .
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2017/0317352) (Lee) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a lithium secondary battery (title; abstract; [0176]), comprising: a positive electrode (21) that absorbs lithium ions during discharge and releases the lithium ions during charge (see Fig. 1G; [0200]; [0211]-[0212]); a negative electrode (11, 22) at which a lithium metal deposits during charge and from which the lithium metal dissolves during discharge (see Figs. 1L and 1G; [0061]-[0063]; [0200]; [0222]-[0223]); and a non-aqueous electrolyte (24) having lithium ion conductivity (see Fig. 1G; [0200]-[0202]; [0224]; [0227]-[0228]), wherein a surface of the negative electrode (11, 22) is covered with a protective layer (12, 23) (see Figs. 1L and 1G; [0062]; [0200]-[0201]), and the protective layer (12, 23) includes a block polymer in which a first polymer segment having a repeating structure of a monomer unit A and a second polymer segment having a repeating structure of a monomer unit B are bound together ([0074]-[0076]; [0084]-[0092]; see also Fig. 1B). Regarding the claimed tensile strength relationship and degree of swelling relationship between the first polymer segment and the second polymer segment, the instant application is clear that a first polymer represented by polystyrene and a second polymer represented by polymethyl methacrylate satisfies the claimed relationships (see [0020]-[0027]; [0086]; and Example A1 in Table 1 of the PGPub of the instant application). Therefore, since Lee discloses that the block polymer can be poly(styrene-methyl methacrylate) ([0092]), which comprises a first polymer segment of polystyrene and a second polymer segment of polymethyl methacrylate, it is considered that the block polymer disclosed by Lee would necessarily meet the claimed tensile strength and degree of swelling relationships. If the composition and structure of the prior art are substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01). Thus, Lee reads on all of the limitations in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. As set forth above, Lee discloses that the block polymer can be poly(styrene-methyl methacrylate) ([0092]), which necessarily includes a monomer unit that is a styrene unit.
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. As set forth above, Lee discloses that the block polymer can be poly(styrene-methyl methacrylate) ([0092]), which necessarily includes a monomer unit that is a methyl methacrylate unit.
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Lee further discloses that the second polymer segment can have a molecular weight of 10,000 to 510,000 Daltons ([0075]), reading on the claimed range of 10,000 or more and 1,000,000 or less.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2016/0329567) (Lee) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a lithium secondary battery (title; [0005]), comprising: a positive electrode (21) that absorbs lithium ions during discharge and releases the lithium ions during charge (see Fig. 2A: [0194]; [0208]-[0209]); a negative electrode (10, 22) at which a lithium metal deposits during charge and from which the lithium metal dissolves during discharge (see Figs. 1 and 2A; [0086]; [0194]; [0223]-[0224]); and a non-aqueous electrolyte (24) having lithium ion conductivity (see Fig. 2A; [0194]; [0225]; [0228]-[0229]), wherein a surface of the negative electrode (10, 22) is covered with a protective layer (11, 23) (see Figs. 1 and 2A; [0086]; [0194]), and the protective layer (11, 23) includes a block polymer in which a first polymer segment having a repeating structure of a monomer unit A and a second polymer segment having a repeating structure of a monomer unit B are bound together ([0087]; [0070]). Regarding the claimed tensile strength relationship and degree of swelling relationship between the first polymer segment and the second polymer segment, the instant application is clear that a first polymer represented by polystyrene and a second polymer represented by polyethylene oxide satisfies the claimed relationships (see [0020]-[0027]; [0086]; and Example A2 in Table 1 of the PGPub of the instant application). Therefore, since Lee discloses that the block polymer can be polystyrene-b-poly(ethylene oxide)-b-polystyrene (PS-b-PEO-b-PS) ([0262]), which comprises a first polymer segment of polystyrene and a second polymer segment of polyethylene oxide, it is considered that the block polymer disclosed by Lee would necessarily meet the claimed tensile strength and degree of swelling relationships. If the composition and structure of the prior art are substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01). Thus, Lee reads on all of the limitations in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. As set forth above, Lee discloses that the block polymer is PS-b-PEO-b-PS ([0262]), which is an ABA-type triblock copolymer in which the first polymer segment (PS) is bound to each of both ends of the second polymer segment (PEO). Thus, Lee reads on all of the limitations in claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. As set forth above, the block polymer is polystyrene-b-poly(ethylene oxide)-b-polystyrene (PS-b-PEO-b-PS) ([0262]), which includes a monomer unit that is a styrene unit.
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Lee further discloses that the first polymer segment (PS) has a molecular weight of 12,000 g/mol, and the second polymer segment (PEO) has a molecular weight of 59,000 g/mol ([0262]), reading on the claimed limitation that the molecular weight of the first polymer segment is smaller than a molecular weight of the second polymer segment.
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Lee further discloses that the first polymer segment (PS) has a molecular weight of 12,000 g/mol ([0262]), reading on the claimed range of 1,000 or more and 100,000 or less.
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Lee further discloses that the second polymer segment (PEO) has a molecular weight of 59,000 g/mol ([0262]), reading on the claimed range of 10,000 or more and 1,000,000 or less.
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Lee further discloses that the protective layer (11, 23) can have a thickness of 5 µm ([0266]), reading on the claimed range of 0.1 µm or more and 5 µm or less.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 2, 7-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0317352) (Lee) (of record).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. As set forth above, Lee discloses that the block polymer is poly(styrene-methyl methacrylate) ([0092]). While this block polymer is a diblock copolymer, Lee further discloses that the block polymer may include a diblock copolymer (A-B), a triblock copolymer (A-B-A’ or B-A-B’), or a combination thereof ([0076]). Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least tried configuring the diblock polymer poly(styrene-methyl methacrylate) disclosed by Lee as a triblock polymer poly(styrene-methyl methacrylate-styrene) because they would have had a reasonable expectation that the triblock polymer would also be an effective block polymer according to the teachings of Lee.
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Lee further discloses that the first polymer segment can have a molecular weight of 10,000 to 510,000 Daltons ([0074]), and the second polymer segment can have a molecular weight of 10,000 to 510,000 Daltons ([0075]). Thus, Lee clearly includes the scenario in which a molecular weight of the first polymer segment is smaller than a molecular weight of the second polymer segment. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least tried configuring the molecular weights of the first and second polymer segments disclosed by Lee such that they meet the claimed relationship based on the wide range of possible values for the molecular weights.
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Lee further discloses that the first polymer segment can have a molecular weight of 10,000 to 510,000 Daltons ([0074]), overlapping the claimed range of 1,000 or more and 100,000 or less. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Lee to have satisfied the claimed range based on the overlapping range disclosed by Lee.
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Lee further discloses that the protective layer (12) can have a thickness of 1 µm to 10 µm ([0107]), overlapping the claimed range of 0.1 µm or more and 5 µm or less. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Lee to have satisfied the claimed thickness range based on the overlapping range disclosed by Lee.
Claims 2 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0317352) (Lee) (of record) in view of Zhang et al. (NPL: "Ionic conductivity, capacitance, and viscoelastic properties of block copolymer-based Ion Gels") (Zhang).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. As set forth above, Lee discloses that the block polymer is poly(styrene-methyl methacrylate) ([0092]). While this block polymer is a diblock copolymer, Lee further discloses that the block polymer may include a diblock copolymer (A-B), a triblock copolymer (A-B-A’ or B-A-B’), or a combination thereof ([0076]). Lee fails to explicitly disclose, however, that the triblock polymer is represented by PS-PMMA-PS, which is an ABA-type triblock polymer in which the first polymer segment (polystyrene) is bound to each of both ends of the second polymer segment (polymethyl methacrylate).
However, this type of triblock polymer is known in the art for use in batteries. For instance, Zhang teaches an ion gel for use in batteries (title; pg. 904), wherein the ion gel comprises a PS-PMMA-PS (poly-(styrene-b-methyl methacrylate-b-styrene)) triblock copolymer (pg. 941, col. 1). Zhang further teaches that configuring the ion gel with this triblock polymer leads to increased ion conductivity (abstract; pg. 942-943; pg. 948).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the diblock copolymer disclosed by Lee with the triblock copolymer taught by Zhang because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would lead to increased ion conductivity for the protective layer.
Regarding claim 7, modified Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Zhang further teaches that the polystyrene segment (corresponding to the claimed first polymer segment) in the triblock copolymer PS-PMMA-PS has a molecular weight of 17,500 Daltons (see Table 1), and the polymethyl methacrylate segment (corresponding to the claimed second polymer segment) has a molecular weight of 86,000 Daltons (see Table 1), suggesting the claimed limitation that the first polymer segment has a smaller molecular weight than the second polymer segment. Therefore, since modified Lee includes the teachings from Zhang regarding the triblock copolymer, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Lee to have satisfied all of the limitations in claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, modified Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Zhang further teaches that the polystyrene segment (corresponding to the claimed first polymer segment) in the triblock copolymer PS-PMMA-PS has a molecular weight of 17,500 Daltons (see Table 1), suggesting the claimed range of 1,000 or more and 100,000 or less. Therefore, since modified Lee includes the teachings from Zhang regarding the triblock copolymer, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Lee to have satisfied all of the limitations in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, modified Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Zhang further teaches that the polymethyl methacrylate segment (corresponding to the claimed second polymer segment) in the triblock copolymer PS-PMMA-PS has a molecular weight of 86,000 Daltons (see Table 1), suggesting the claimed range of 10,000 or more and 1,000,000 or less. Therefore, since modified Lee includes the teachings from Zhang regarding the triblock copolymer, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Lee to have satisfied all of the limitations in claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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.
/B.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749