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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2017/0233579), in view of Hu et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2010/0210453) and Lei et al. (Science 355, 267-271 (2017)).
Regarding claim 1, Yushin teaches a method of making aluminum alkoxide nanowires (Fig. 13, [0003 and 0070]), the method comprising:
an alloy comprising aluminum (Al) and lithium (Li) (alloy produced in 1302, Fig. 13, [0070], suitable compositions, AlxLi1-x, see [0036]); and
treating metal with an alcohol-comprising solvent (alcohol of step 1301b, Fig. 13) to form the Al alkoxide nanowires (1303, Fig. 13),
but does not teach treating an alloy with a reactive solvent to form a porous metal comprising Al; and treating the porous metal with an alcohol-comprising solvent, wherein: the reactive solvent has a pKa value at 25 °C that is less than 15.
However, Hu teaches treating an alloy (compound of the first material [0009] and second metal [0010], see [0011]) with a reactive solvent (water, [0011]) to form a porous metal (nanoporous material in form of first metal, [0011]), wherein: the reactive solvent has a pKa value at 25 °C that is less than 15 (pKa of water: 14, see [0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of making aluminum alkoxide nanowires of Yushin by adding a step of treating the alloy with water to form a porous metal before treatment with alcohol, to achieve nanoporous material without the use of any template or surfactant that allow for the production of nanoparticles (see [0003 and 0011]).
Further, Lei teaches treating the porous metal comprising Al (porous Al, Page1:C3:L10-12) with an alcohol comprising solvent (alcohols, Page1:C3:L10-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of making aluminum alkoxide nanowires of Yushin, in view of Hu, to include treating the porous Al with alcohol, as taught by Lei, because Al atoms become more reactive to alkoxides after dissolution of lithium leaves pores (see Page1:C2:L34-39), allowing for the production of thermally stable membranes (see Page4:C2:8-12).
Regarding claim 2, Yushin, in view of Hu and Lei, teaches the pKa value at 25 °C is about 14 (pKa of water: 14, see [0011] of Hu).
It is the position of the Examiner that while Yushin, in view of Hu and Lei, does not explicitly disclose a pKa value at 25 °C, it is known in the art that the pKa of water at 25 °C is about 14.
Regarding claim 3, Yushin, in view of Hu and Lei, teaches the reactive solvent comprises water (water, see [0011] of Hu).
Regarding claim 4, Yushin, in view of Hu and Lei, teaches the alcohol-comprising solvent (alcohol of step 1301b, Fig. 13),
but does not teach the alcohol comprising solvent comprises ethanol; and the Al alkoxide nanowires comprises Al ethoxide nanowires.
However, in an alternate embodiment, Yushin teaches the alcohol-comprising solvent comprises ethanol (see [0048-0049]); and the Al alkoxide nanowires comprises Al ethoxide nanowires (Al(EtO)3 nanowires, Fig. 1F, see [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the alcohol comprising solvent of the embodiment of Fig. 13 of Yushin such that it comprises ethanol, as in the embodiment of Figs. 1A-1F of Yushin because Yushin teaches such is an effective equivalent solvent that would yield the same predictable result. Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, Yushin, in view of Hu and Lei, teaches the Al alkoxide nanowires made in accordance with the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Further, it is the position of the Examiner that it has been held that the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.
Regarding claim 7, Yushin, in view of Hu and Lei, teaches annealing the Al alkoxide nanowires (nanowires resulting from step 1304, Fig. 13, see [0070]) to form Al oxide nanowires (1309, Fig. 13, see [0038 and 0070]).
Regarding claim 8, Yushin, in view of Hu and Lei, teaches the Al oxide nanowires made in accordance with the method of claim 7 (see rejection of claims 1 and 7).
Further, it is the position of the Examiner that it has been held that the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.
Regarding claim 9, Yushin, in view of Hu and Lei, teaches further comprising: hydrolyzing the Al alkoxide nanowires (nanowires resulting from step 1304, Fig. 13, see [0070]) in a hydrolyzing environment (in water at 50-90° C, see [0040]) to form Al hydroxide nanowires (1308, Fig. 13, see [0040 and 0070]).
Regarding claim 11, Yushin, in view of Hu and Lei, teaches the Al hydroxide nanowires made in accordance with the method of claim 9 (see rejection of claims 1 and 9).
Further, it is the position of the Examiner that it has been held that the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.
Regarding claim 12, Yushin, in view of Hu and Lei, teaches annealing the Al hydroxide nanowires to form Al oxide nanowires (1309 following optional step 1308, Fig. 13, see [0038, 0040, and 0070]).
Regarding claim 13, Yushin, in view of Hu and Lei, teaches the Al oxide nanowires made in accordance with the method of claim 12 (see rejection of claims 1, 9, and 12).
Further, it is the position of the Examiner that it has been held that the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2017/0233579), in view of Hu et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2010/0210453) and Lei et al. (Science 355, 267-271 (2017)), and further in view of Yan (CN 102320582, Machine Translation attached).
Regarding claim 5, Yushin, in view of Hu and Lei, teaches the alloy comprises Li (alloy produced in 1302, Fig. 13, [0070], suitable compositions, AlxLi1-x, see [0036]),
but does not teach Li at a mass fraction in the alloy in a range of about 0.1 wt.% to about 10 wt.%.
However, Yan teaches an alloy comprising Li at a mass fraction in the alloy in a range of about 0.1 wt. % to about 10 wt. % (4%, Pg7:L28-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the alloy comprising Li of Yushin, in view of Hu and Lei, to have a Li mass fraction between 0.1-10 wt%, as taught by Yan, to form porous nanoparticles containing Al with small pore size and large specific surface area (Pg2:L17-25).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2017/0233579), in view of Hu et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2010/0210453) and Lei et al. (Science 355, 267-271 (2017)), and further in view of Drobotenko et al. (Inorganic Materials, 2010, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 295–298).
Regarding claim 10, Yushin, in view of Hu and Lei, teaches a hydrolyzing environment (water at 50-90° C, see [0040]),
but does not teach the hydrolyzing environment comprises ambient air.
However, Drobotenko teaches a hydrolyzing aluminum alkoxide to aluminum hydroxide (Formula 1, see [0042]), wherein the hydrolyzing environment comprises ambient air (in air at a relative humidity of 60-80%, Page1:C2:L24-28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the hydrolyzing environment of Yushin, in view of Hu and Lei, such that it comprises ambient air, as taught by Drobotenko, to control particle size via adjusting hydrolysis conditions (see Page1:C1:L7-9).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2017/0233579), in view of Hu et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2010/0210453) and Lei et al. (Science 355, 267-271 (2017)), and further in view of Tepper et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,838,005).
Regarding claim 14, Yushin, in view of Hu and Lei, teaches forming a nanowire dispersion (step 1306, Fig. 13, see [0070]),
but does not teach dispersing the Al hydroxide nanowires in an aqueous solvent.
However, Tepper teaches dispersing Al hydroxide nanowires (aluminum hydroxide fibers 2 nanometers in diameter, see Abstract) in an aqueous solvent (water, see Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of forming a nanowire dispersion of Yushin, in view of Hu and Lei, such that it comprises dispersing the Al hydroxide wires in an aqueous solvent, as taught by Tepper, to allow the nanowires to attach to and retain electronegative particles (see Abstract).
Regarding claim 15, Yushin, in view of Hu, Lei, and Tepper, teaches the aqueous solvent is water (water, see Abstract of Tepper).
Regarding claim 16, Yushin, in view of Hu, Lei, and Tepper, teach the nanowire dispersion made in accordance with the method of claim 14 (see rejection of claims 1, 9, and 14).
Further, it is the position of the Examiner that it has been held that the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2017/0233579), in view of Hu et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2010/0210453), Lei et al. (Science 355, 267-271 (2017)), and Tepper et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,838,005), and further in view of Kong (U.S. Pub. US 2013/0202890).
Regarding claim 17, Yushin, in view of Hu, Lei, and Tepper, teach the nanowire dispersion comprises the Al hydroxide nanowires and/or Al oxide nanowires (see Abstract of Tepper),
but does not teach freeze-drying the nanowire dispersion to form an aerogel;
However, Kong teaches freeze-drying (freeze drying, Embodiment 14, see [0127]) a dispersion (gel precursor, see [0113 and 0127]) to form an aerogel (step B, see [0114 and 0127]).
It is the position of the Examiner that Kong teaches the gel precursor comprises nanowires ([0130]) and Al oxide (alumina, [0116]). The embodiments of Kong teaching nanowires and Al oxide are presented as alternatives. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the dispersion of Embodiment 14 of Kong such that it comprises Al oxide nanowires, as taught in the Embodiments 3 and 17 of Kong, because Kong teaches that the components of the gel precursor may be selected from those listed depending on the desired property of the resultant aerogel (see [0036]). Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of nanowire dispersion of Yushin, in view of Hu, Lei, and Tepper, by adding a freeze-drying step after dispersion, as taught by Kong, to obtain an aerogel usable in energy devices in industry and research (see [0099]).
Regarding claim 20, Yushin, in view of Hu, Lei, Tepper, and Kong, teaches the aerogel made in accordance with the method of claim 17 (see rejection of claims 1, 9, 14, and 17).
Further, it is the position of the Examiner that it has been held that the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2017/0233579), in view of Hu et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2010/0210453), Lei et al. (Science 355, 267-271 (2017)), Tepper et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,838,005), and Kong (U.S. Pub. US 2013/0202890), and further in view of Maggard et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2020/0239326).
Regarding claim 18, Yushin, in view of Hu, Lei, Tepper, and Kong, does not teach annealing the aerogel.
However, Maggard teaches annealing the aerogel (aluminum oxide aerogel, see [0084]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the aerogel of Yushin, in view of Hu, Lei, Tepper, and Kong, by annealing, as taught by Maggard, to obtain a highly crystalline product ([0133]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2017/0233579), in view of Hu et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2010/0210453), Lei et al. (Science 355, 267-271 (2017)), Tepper et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,838,005), and Kong (U.S. Pub. US 2013/0202890), and further in view of Hiroyuki et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2020/0025324).
Regarding claim 19, Yushin, in view of Hu, Lei, Tepper, and Kong, teaches the aerogel (aerogel, [0114] of Kong) and a matrix material (matrix material, [0081] of Yushin) being selected from polymers (suitable polymer, [0081]), metals and glasses (oxide glass, [0081]),
but does not teach filling the aerogel with a matrix material.
However, Hiroyuki teaches filling an aerogel (infiltrating voids of aerogel, [0166]) with a matrix material (coating liquid, [0166]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the step of forming an aerogel of Yushin, in view of Hu, Lei, Tepper, and Kong, by adding a subsequent step of filling the aerogel with a matrix material, as taught by Hiroyuki, to reduce brittleness and further provide a product excellent in heat insulation reliability (see [0166]).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2017/0233579), in view of Hu et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2010/0210453), Lei et al. (Science 355, 267-271 (2017)), and Tepper et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,838,005), and further in view of Chou et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2020/0165132).
Regarding claim 21, Yushin, in view of Hu, Lei, and Tepper, teaches the nanowire dispersion (see Abstract of Tepper), at least one of an anode (graphite anode, see [0096]) and a cathode (lithium iron phosphate cathode, see [0096]), at least one separator layer (γ-Al2O3 nanowire separator, see [0096]) with the at least one separator layer positioned between the anode and the cathode (separating anodes and cathodes, [0098]),
but does not teach coating the nanowire dispersion on at least one of an anode and a cathode to form at least one separator layer; assembling a lithium-ion battery cell from the anode and the cathode; and filling an electrolyte ionically coupling the anode and the cathode in the lithium-ion battery cell to form a lithium-ion battery.
However, in an alternate embodiment, Yushin teaches coating (dip coating, see [0098]) the nanowire dispersion on at least one of an anode and a cathode (at least one electrode, see [0098]) to form at least one separator layer (integrated membrane, see [0098]).
It is the position of the Examiner that Yushin teaches small wires directly coated on at least one of the electrodes, thereby teaching the nanowire dispersion coated on at least one of an anode and a cathode. This is because the method of dip coating would necessarily require nanowires to be dispersed in a liquid, in order for dipping to occur. Further, Yushin teaches the advantage of using porous small wires as separators due to their advantages in porosity and flexibility over conventional polymer separators ([0093-0094]). This teaching would apply equivalently to suggest the use of dispersed nanowires to form separators.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the formation of the separator layer of Yushin, in view of Hu, Lei and Tepper, to be formed via coating with a nanowire dispersion, as taught by Yushin, to separate the anode and cathode while providing a small resistance to ion transport ([0098]).
Further, Yushin teaches an electrolyte ionically coupling the anode and the cathode (membranes infiltrated electrolyte when used in devices, [0093]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of making a separator layer of Yushin, in view of Hu, Lei, and Tepper, to further include providing an electrolyte coupling the anode and cathode, as taught by Yushin, to enable the use of the separator in battery devices with fast ion transport (see [0093].
Yushin, in view of Hu, Lei, and Tepper, still does not teach assembling a lithium-ion battery cell from the anode and the cathode; and filling an electrolyte in in the lithium-ion battery cell to form a lithium-ion battery.
However, Chou teaches assembling a lithium-ion battery cell from the anode (anode, [0039]) and the cathode (cathode, [0039]); and filling an electrolyte (injected Li-containing electrolyte, [0039]) in the lithium-ion battery cell to form a lithium-ion battery (Li-ion battery [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of making a separator layer of Yushin, in view of Hu, Lei, and Tepper, by adding a subsequent step of assembling a battery, to obtain one of the most popular forms of power supply (see [0005]).
Regarding claim 22, Yushin, in view of Hu, Lei, Tepper, and Chou, teach the lithium-ion battery made in accordance with the method of claim 21 (see rejection of claims 1, 9, 14, and 21).
Further, it is the position of the Examiner that it has been held that the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration After Non-Final Rejection with respect to claims filed on 11 April 2023 has been entered. Claims 1-22 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections set forth in the Non-Final office action mailed on 09 March 2026 are maintained, see Response to Arguments section, below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument with respect to the characterization of reference Hu et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2010/0210453), applicant asserts that “Hu does not teach treating an ‘alloy’ with water to form a porous metal, and its starting materials and processes are completely different from the claimed invention”.
First, Hu does teach treating an “alloy” with water. As cited in the non-final office action, in [0011], Hu teaches following reacting with water, “the nanoporous material so produced is present in the form of the first metal, or of the first metal alloy”, and in [0009], teaches the parent metal as including “alloys thereof”. With regard to the latter point, the unclaimed processes of the invention are not required to be taught in the rejection of claimed subject matter. While the processes may not be identical, Hu does provide a teaching of treating an alloy with a reactive solvent to form a porous metal, sufficient to modify the invention of Yushin et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2017/0233579). Further, the Examiner does not rely on Hu for further rejection of the details of the claimed method (beyond specifying water as a reactant in claims 2 and 3). Thus, it is unnecessary for Hu to teach the specific methodology as disclosed by applicant, as long as treatment with water is detailed.
Applicant further asserts that the process of Hu does not involve a bimetallic alloy, simple bimetallic alloy comprising Li (like Al-Li), a true bimetallic alloy, or alloy compositions of Al0.5Li0.5 or Al2Li3 or Al4Li9; none of the preceding are actually required in claim 1, as written. Claim 1 recites “an alloy comprising (Al) and lithium (Li)”, which, under broadest reasonable interpretation, does not require a bimetallic alloy of the two compounds listed. An alloy “comprising” Li, requires only that lithium be present in the alloy. A lithiated first metal alloy would comprise lithium, in the same way that an alloy with impurities would comprise those impurities without being a “true alloy” of the impurity element/compound. Thus, the Examiner is not conflating the compound of a second metal with a true bimetallic alloy, but rather asserting that a first metal alloy interspersed with microparticles ([0056] of Hu) of Li would constitute comprising Li.
Regarding applicant’s argument with respect to the characterization of Lei et al. (Science 355, 267-271 (2017)), applicant asserts that “Lei does not teach reacting porous aluminum with alcohol to form nanowires; in fact, Lei teaches that the formation of porous aluminum represents a failed, passive state. Lei only mentions ‘porous Al’ in the context of failed reactions”.
This is false. As cited in the non-final office action, on Page 1, Column 3, Lines 10-12 read: “In addition, the reaction of porous Al with alcohols with the formation of Al alkoxides induces significant volume expansion”. This is not in the context of a failed reaction, as the following sentence describes associated formation of Al alkoxides having “significantly higher reactivity”. While Applicant is correct in highlighting that Lei does not teach “passivated porous Al” as reactive, the combined invention of Yushin, in view of Hu, which Lei modifies, does not rely on passivated porous Al.
This leads to Applicant’s final argument: that “Hu washes away the Li2O to leave a pure, stable nanoporous metal”, indicating that “if POSITA were to apply Hu’s goal of complete lithium extraction to the Al-Li alloy of Yushin, the resulting material would be pure, fully passivated aluminum”.
However, in [0011], Hu teaches “the nanoporous material so produced is present in the form of the first metal, or of the first alloy or in the form of a mixture of the first metal or alloy with a compound thereof, which results when not all of the second metal compound is chemically removed.” Hu teaches the second metal may be Li ([0060]), as would be the case when modifying the invention of Yushin. This shows that if POSITA were to apply Hu’s teaching of removing less than the entirety of the second metal compound, the resulting material would not be fully passivated aluminum. Further, Hu teaches that the nanoporous structure can be the “starting material for further processing”, suggesting the further modification of Lei to further treat the obtained porous metal comprising Al with an alcohol to form Al alkoxide would be reasonable to POSITA.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aidan L Papandria whose telephone number is (571)272-1831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/AIDAN LACHLAN PAPANDRIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights