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 5/10/23 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 5/10/23. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,686,223 B2 (hereinafter “US’223”) in view of Zhu et al., “A new single-ion polymer electrolyte based on polyvinyl alcohol” (hereinafter “Zhu”).
As to Claim 1:US’223 discloses:
a solid electrolyte comprising a solid polymer electrolyte suitable for use in a lithium battery (Col. 1, lines 15–25; Col. 3, lines 20–35);
the solid electrolyte includes a polymer compound, specifically a boron-containing polymer electrolyte in which boron-based repeating structural units are covalently incorporated into the polymer to provide single-ion conduction (Col. 4, lines 5–25; Col. 6, lines 10–30); and
the solid electrolyte includes a supporting salt, specifically lithium salts, including lithium imide salts, associated with the polymer electrolyte to enable lithium-ion conduction (Col. 6, lines 35–55; Col. 8, lines 1–15).
However, US’223 does not expressly disclose that the polymer compound includes a structural unit X represented by formula (1) and/or a structural unit Y represented by formula (2), particularly where the boron-containing cyclic structure is formed by backbone diols such that the polymer backbone carbons participate in the cyclic boronate structure as required by Claim 1.
Zhu discloses a single-ion polymer electrolyte formed by reacting polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) with boron compounds to produce backbone-integrated cyclic boronate ester structures, wherein vicinal diols on the PVA backbone coordinate boron to form a six-membered cyclic boronate consistent with structural unit X represented by formula (1) (pp. 114–116; Scheme 1). Zhu further discloses anionic borate structures coordinated with lithium ions, corresponding to structural unit Y represented by formula (2), within the same PVA-based polymer electrolyte system (Scheme 1; Fig. 1 (FT-IR confirming B–O and C=O features)). Thus, Zhu teaches the specific polymer-backbone-integrated boron structural units recited in Claim 1 that are not expressly disclosed by US’223.
US’223 and Zhu are analogous art because both references are directed to single-ion conductive solid polymer electrolytes for lithium batteries, address the same technical problem of immobilizing anions in polymer electrolytes while enabling lithium-ion conduction, and employ boron-based polymer chemistry to achieve ion conduction.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the boron-containing polymer electrolyte of US’223 to employ the specific PVA-based, backbone-integrated cyclic boronate structural units taught by Zhu, because Zhu demonstrates that such structures are effective single-ion conductors in solid polymer electrolytes, and implementing the specific boron structural units within the polymer electrolyte framework of US’223 represents a predictable use of known boron-polymer structures with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to Claim 2:US’223 discloses the solid electrolyte according to claim 1, including a boron-containing polymer solid electrolyte suitable for use in a lithium battery (Col. 1, lines 15–25; Col. 3, lines 20–35). US’223 further discloses that the solid electrolyte includes a supporting salt, specifically lithium salts, including lithium imide salts, associated with the polymer electrolyte to enable lithium-ion conduction (Col. 6, lines 35–55; Col. 8, lines 1–15).
However, US’223 does not expressly disclose that the supporting salt is specifically lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI), as required by Claim 2.
Zhu discloses single-ion polymer electrolytes for lithium batteries in which lithium salts are employed in combination with polymer-anchored borate anions, and further teaches that lithium imide-type salts, including fluorosulfonyl-based lithium salts, are suitable lithium sources for polymer electrolyte systems to achieve stable lithium-ion conduction (pp. 114–116; discussion of lithium salt selection and electrolyte composition). Thus, Zhu teaches the use of fluorosulfonyl-based lithium salts, corresponding to LiFSI, as suitable supporting salts in polymer electrolyte systems.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to employ lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI) as the supporting salt in the solid polymer electrolyte of US’223, as taught by Zhu, because Zhu demonstrates that fluorosulfonyl-based lithium salts are suitable and effective lithium sources for polymer electrolytes, and such substitution represents a predictable selection of one known lithium imide salt for another with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to Claim 7:US’223 discloses a solid polymer electrolyte comprising a boron-containing polymer compound and a lithium supporting salt for use in lithium batteries (Col. 1, lines 15–25; Col. 3, lines 20–35; Col. 6, lines 35–55). US’223 further discloses that the relative amounts of the polymeric boron units and the lithium salt are adjusted to achieve ion conductivity and mechanical stability, and teaches molar ratios of boron-containing functional units to lithium ions within ranges that overlap or encompass values near unity (Col. 6, lines 20–35).
However, US’223 does not expressly disclose that a molar ratio of the structural unit X and/or Y to the supporting salt is specifically 0.5 or more and 2 or less, as recited in Claim 7, nor does US’223 explicitly tie the disclosed ratio range to the particular backbone-integrated cyclic boronate structural units corresponding to formulas (1) and (2).
Zhu discloses PVA-based single-ion polymer electrolytes in which boron-containing cyclic structural units are formed on the polymer backbone and are present in a defined stoichiometric relationship with lithium ions, such that the ratio of boron structural units to lithium ions is approximately 1:1, falling squarely within the claimed range of 0.5 to 2 (pp. 114–116; Scheme 1; Table 1 (composition and stoichiometry discussion)). Thus, Zhu teaches the specific molar ratio relationship between the boron structural units and the lithium species recited in Claim 7.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to select a molar ratio of the boron-containing structural units to the lithium supporting salt within the range of 0.5 to 2 in the solid polymer electrolyte of US’223, as taught by Zhu, because Zhu demonstrates that such ratios provide effective lithium-ion conduction and electrochemical stability, and selecting a ratio within this range represents a routine optimization of a result-effective variable with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to Claim 8:US’223 discloses a battery comprising a solid polymer electrolyte positioned between a positive electrode and a negative electrode in a lithium battery configuration (Col. 2, lines 30–50; Col. 8, lines 20–40). US’223 further discloses that the solid polymer electrolyte includes a boron-containing polymer compound and a lithium supporting salt, and that such electrolytes are incorporated into battery cells to enable lithium-ion conduction during charge and discharge (Col. 3, lines 20–35; Col. 6, lines 35–55).
However, US’223 does not expressly disclose that the solid electrolyte used in the battery includes a polymer compound having a structural unit X represented by formula (1) and/or a structural unit Y represented by formula (2), particularly where the boron-containing cyclic structure is integrated into the polymer backbone as recited in Claim 8 by reference to Claim 1.
Zhu discloses a single-ion polymer electrolyte formed by reacting polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) with boron compounds to generate backbone-integrated cyclic boronate structural units, corresponding to structural unit X represented by formula (1) and structural unit Y represented by formula (2), and further teaches that such polymer electrolytes are suitable for use in lithium battery systems due to their high lithium-ion transference number and electrochemical stability (pp. 114–116; Scheme 1; electrochemical performance discussion). Thus, Zhu teaches the specific polymer electrolyte structure recited in Claim 8 that is not expressly disclosed by US’223.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to employ the PVA-based, backbone-integrated cyclic boronate polymer electrolyte taught by Zhu as the solid polymer electrolyte in the battery of US’223, because Zhu demonstrates that such electrolytes are effective in lithium battery applications, and substituting one known solid polymer electrolyte for another in an otherwise conventional battery configuration represents a predictable modification with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to Claim 9:US’223 discloses:
a method for producing a solid polymer electrolyte that includes preparing a liquid mixture comprising a polymer compound, a lithium supporting salt, and a solvent, followed by removal of the solvent to form a solid electrolyte film or membrane (Col. 6, lines 1–20; Col. 6, lines 20–40); and
the polymer compound is a boron-containing polymer, and that lithium salts are included in the mixture to provide lithium-ion conductivity in the resulting solid electrolyte (Col. 4, lines 5–25; Col. 6, lines 35–55).
However, US’223 does not expressly disclose that the polymer compound in the liquid mixture includes a structural unit X represented by formula (1) and/or a structural unit Y represented by formula (2), particularly where the boron-containing cyclic structure is formed by backbone diols such that the polymer backbone carbons participate in the cyclic boronate structure as recited in Claim 9.
Zhu discloses a method of preparing a single-ion polymer electrolyte by dissolving polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and a boron compound in a solvent to form a liquid mixture, followed by solvent removal (e.g., drying/evaporation) to obtain a solid polymer electrolyte (pp. 114–116; Scheme 1). Zhu further teaches that the reaction of PVA with boron compounds produces backbone-integrated cyclic boronate structural units, corresponding to structural unit X represented by formula (1) and structural unit Y represented by formula (2), within the resulting solid polymer electrolyte (Scheme 1; structural discussion). Thus, Zhu teaches the specific polymer structural units and preparation steps not expressly disclosed by US’223.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to prepare the solid polymer electrolyte of US’223 using the PVA-based, backbone-integrated cyclic boronate polymer structure and preparation method taught by Zhu, because Zhu demonstrates that such polymer structures can be formed by solution processing and solvent removal to yield effective single-ion polymer electrolytes, and applying this known preparation technique and polymer structure to the electrolyte system of US’223 represents a predictable modification with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,686,223 B2 (hereinafter “US’223”) in view of Zhu et al., “A new single-ion polymer electrolyte based on polyvinyl alcohol” (hereinafter “Zhu”), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2004/0147697 A1 (hereinafter “US’697”).
As to Claim 3:US’223 discloses a solid electrolyte comprising a boron-containing polymer compound and a lithium supporting salt, suitable for use as a single-ion conductive polymer electrolyte in lithium batteries (Col. 1, lines 15–25; Col. 3, lines 20–35; Col. 4, lines 5–25; Col. 6, lines 35–55). US’223 further discloses that the boron-containing polymer includes boron-based repeating structural units that function to immobilize anions while enabling lithium-ion transport through the polymer matrix (Col. 4, lines 10–25; Col. 5, lines 1–30).
However, US’223 does not expressly disclose that the polymer compound includes a structural unit X and/or Y in which the boron atom is incorporated into a cyclic structure formed by vicinal diols on a polymer backbone, nor does US’223 expressly disclose specific substituent structures on the boron-containing unit as recited in Claim 3.
Zhu discloses a PVA-based single-ion polymer electrolyte formed by reacting polyvinyl alcohol with boron compounds, thereby producing backbone-integrated cyclic boronate ester structural units corresponding to structural units X and Y, wherein the polymer backbone carbons participate in the cyclic boron structure (pp. 114–116; Scheme 1). Zhu further teaches that such backbone-integrated boronate structures are effective for immobilizing anions and improving lithium-ion transference number in solid polymer electrolytes (electrochemical performance discussion).
US’697 discloses boron-containing cyclic ester structures having substituents on the boron atom and/or on the cyclic boronate ring, and teaches that such substituted boron-containing units may be incorporated into polymer electrolytes to tailor ion coordination and electrochemical properties ([0020]–[0035]; [0048]–[0056]; Figs. 1–3). Thus, US’697 teaches the specific substituent features of boron-containing cyclic structures recited in Claim 3 that are not expressly disclosed by US’223 or Zhu alone.
US’223, Zhu, and US’697 are analogous art because all three references are directed to boron-containing polymer electrolytes for lithium batteries, address the same technical problem of immobilizing anions while enabling lithium-ion conduction, and employ boron-based polymer chemistry to achieve single-ion conductive behavior.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the boron-containing polymer electrolyte of US’223 to employ the backbone-integrated cyclic boronate structural units taught by Zhu, and further to incorporate the boron substituent features taught by US’697, because Zhu demonstrates that backbone-integrated boronate structures derived from PVA are effective single-ion conductors, and US’697 teaches that substituents on boron-containing cyclic units are routinely selected to tune ion coordination and electrochemical performance, such modification representing a predictable combination of known elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to Claim 4:US’223 discloses a solid polymer electrolyte comprising a boron-containing polymer compound and a lithium supporting salt, suitable for use in lithium batteries (Col. 1, lines 15–25; Col. 3, lines 20–35; Col. 4, lines 5–25; Col. 6, lines 35–55). US’223 further discloses that the boron-containing polymer includes boron-based repeating structural units that function to immobilize anions and enable lithium-ion conduction through the polymer matrix (Col. 4, lines 10–25; Col. 5, lines 1–30).
However, US’223 does not expressly disclose that the polymer compound includes the specific cyclic boron-containing structural unit recited in Claim 4, nor does US’223 disclose the particular ring configuration and substituent arrangement of the boron-containing unit as required by Claim 4.
Zhu discloses a PVA-based single-ion polymer electrolyte formed by reacting polyvinyl alcohol with boron compounds to generate backbone-integrated cyclic boronate ester structural units, wherein vicinal diols on the polymer backbone participate in forming a six-membered cyclic boronate structure corresponding to the cyclic boron-containing framework recited in Claim 4 (pp. 114–116; Scheme 1). Zhu further teaches that such cyclic boronate structures are effective for immobilizing anions and improving lithium-ion transference number in solid polymer electrolytes (electrochemical performance discussion).
US’697 discloses boron-containing cyclic ester structures having defined ring configurations and substituents on the boron atom and/or on the cyclic framework, and teaches that such cyclic boron-containing structures may be incorporated into polymer electrolytes to adjust coordination environment and electrochemical properties ([0020]–[0035]; [0048]–[0056]; Figs. 1–3). Thus, US’697 teaches the specific cyclic structure details and substituent arrangements recited in Claim 4 that are not expressly disclosed by US’223.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the boron-containing polymer electrolyte of US’223 to include the backbone-integrated cyclic boronate structural framework taught by Zhu, and further to employ the specific cyclic boron structural features and substituent arrangements taught by US’697, because Zhu demonstrates that backbone-integrated cyclic boronate structures are effective single-ion conductors, and US’697 teaches that cyclic boron structure and substituent selection are routine design choices for tuning polymer electrolyte properties, such modification representing a predictable combination of known elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to Claim 5:US’223 discloses a solid polymer electrolyte comprising a boron-containing polymer compound and a lithium supporting salt, suitable for use in lithium batteries (Col. 1, lines 15–25; Col. 3, lines 20–35; Col. 4, lines 5–25; Col. 6, lines 35–55). US’223 further discloses that the boron-containing polymer includes boron-based repeating structural units configured to immobilize anions and facilitate lithium-ion transport through the polymer matrix (Col. 4, lines 10–25; Col. 5, lines 1–30).
However, US’223 does not expressly disclose that the polymer compound includes a structural unit X and/or Y having the specific substituent configuration recited in Claim 5, including carbonyl-containing substituents on the boron-containing cyclic structure as required by Claim 5.
Zhu discloses a PVA-based single-ion polymer electrolyte formed by reacting polyvinyl alcohol with boron compounds to generate backbone-integrated cyclic boronate ester structural units, wherein vicinal diols on the polymer backbone form six-membered cyclic boronate structures corresponding to structural units X and Y (pp. 114–116; Scheme 1). Zhu further teaches that oxalate- or carbonate-derived boron species introduce carbonyl-containing functional groups (C=O) into the boron-containing cyclic structure, as confirmed by spectroscopic analysis (FT-IR discussion and figures).
US’697 discloses boron-containing cyclic ester structures having substituents on the boron atom and/or on the cyclic framework, including carbonyl-containing groups, and teaches that such substituents are selected to tune ion coordination strength and electrochemical properties of polymer electrolytes ([0020]–[0035]; [0048]–[0056]; Figs. 1–3). Thus, US’697 teaches the specific carbonyl-containing substituent features recited in Claim 5 that are not expressly disclosed by US’223 alone.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the boron-containing polymer electrolyte of US’223 to employ the backbone-integrated cyclic boronate structural units taught by Zhu and to further incorporate the carbonyl-containing substituent features taught by US’697, because Zhu demonstrates that such backbone-integrated boronate structures are effective single-ion conductors and US’697 teaches that substituent selection on boron-containing cyclic units is a routine design choice for tuning electrochemical performance, such modification representing a predictable combination of known elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,686,223 B2 (hereinafter “US’223”) in view of Zhu et al., “A new single-ion polymer electrolyte based on polyvinyl alcohol” (hereinafter “Zhu”), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 6124324 B2 (hereinafter “JP’324”).
As to Claim 6:US’223 discloses a solid polymer electrolyte comprising a boron-containing polymer compound and a lithium supporting salt, suitable for use in lithium batteries (Col. 1, lines 15–25; Col. 3, lines 20–35; Col. 4, lines 5–25; Col. 6, lines 35–55). US’223 further discloses that the boron-containing polymer includes boron-based repeating structural units that function to immobilize anions and enable lithium-ion conduction through the polymer matrix (Col. 4, lines 10–25; Col. 5, lines 1–30).
However, US’223 does not expressly disclose that the polymer compound includes the specific backbone-integrated cyclic boronate structural unit recited in Claim 6, nor does US’223 disclose the particular structural relationship between the boron-containing unit and the polymer backbone as required by Claim 6.
Zhu discloses a PVA-based single-ion polymer electrolyte formed by reacting polyvinyl alcohol with boron compounds, thereby producing backbone-integrated cyclic boronate ester structural units, in which vicinal diols on the polymer backbone participate in forming a six-membered cyclic boronate structure corresponding to the cyclic boron-containing unit recited in Claim 6 (pp. 114–116; Scheme 1). Zhu further teaches that such backbone-integrated cyclic boronate structures are effective for immobilizing anions and enhancing lithium-ion transference number in solid polymer electrolytes (electrochemical performance discussion).
JP’324 discloses boron-containing polymer electrolytes in which specific structural configurations of boron-containing units are incorporated into polymer chains to improve ion transport properties and electrochemical stability, and further teaches selecting particular boron coordination structures and polymer architectures to optimize lithium-ion conduction in solid polymer electrolytes (pp. 6–8, lines 5–25; pp. 10–12, lines 1–20). Thus, JP’324 teaches the polymer–boron structural integration and design considerations relevant to the specific structural configuration recited in Claim 6 that are not expressly disclosed by US’223 alone.
US’223, Zhu, and JP’324 are analogous art because all three references are directed to solid polymer electrolytes for lithium batteries, address the same technical problem of providing single-ion conductive polymer electrolytes with immobilized anions, and employ boron-based polymer chemistry to achieve lithium-ion conduction.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the boron-containing polymer electrolyte of US’223 to employ the backbone-integrated cyclic boronate structural unit taught by Zhu, and further to adopt the polymer–boron structural integration techniques taught by JP’324, because Zhu demonstrates that backbone-integrated cyclic boronate structures are effective single-ion conductors, and JP’324 teaches that incorporating specific boron-containing structures into polymer backbones is a routine design approach for optimizing ion transport and electrochemical stability, such modification representing a predictable combination of known elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Single-ion conducting polymer electrolytes based on borate anions” NPL teaches borate anions covalently bound to polymer chains.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY K VO whose telephone number is (571)272-3242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am to 6 pm EST.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/JIMMY VO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/JIMMY VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723