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
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) 1-2, 4-5, and 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis et al. [US20140197032A1, as provided on the IDS dated 12/19/2023 as US10022680B2], hereinafter Willis, in view of Li et al [An advance review of solid-state battery: challenges, progress, and prospects, Sustainable Materials and Technologies 29 (2021) e00297, pgs. 1-14], hereinafter Li, and, in view of Hillmyer et al [US20150221980A1, as provided on the IDS dated 12/19/2023], hereinafter Hillmyer.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 2, and Claim 5, Willis discloses
a polyelectrolyte composition comprising [Willis abstract, 0003, and throughout, membrane of a block copolymer]:
a) a polyionic multiblock polymer containing a styrenic block copolymer precursor [Willis abstract, 0022-0047, and throughout] with at least a quaternary ammonium salt [Willis 0149 and throughout], wherein the styrenic block copolymer precursor comprises:
a block D derived from a substituted vinyl aromatic monomer [Willis 0023-0026, 0057, group ii -iv], having a molecular weight (Mp) of 10 to 100 kg/mol [Willis 0008 and throughout, block D MW of 1 to 100 kg/mol overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.],
a block A derived from a vinyl aromatic monomer [Willis 0022, 0116,0120, and throughout, styrene], having a molecular weight (Mp) of 5 to 100 kg/mol [Willis 0008 and throughout, block A MP of 1 to 60 kg/mol overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.], and
optionally a block B derived from a conjugated diene monomer, having a molecular weight (Mp) of 1 to 40 kg/mol [Willis 0047-0048, type iv, block B molecular weight range of 1 to 100 kg/mol, which overlaps and obviates the claimed ranges. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.];
b) a cross-linking agent comprising a compound having at least two amino groups, wherein the cross-linking agent is present in an amount of 0.05 to 20 mol%, based on total mol of the quaternary ammonium salt [Willis 0175, 0357-0372, and throughout, Willis discusses cross-linking throughout and Examples 4-5 use DABCO, which would be considered a cross-linking compound with at least two amino groups. Willis does not explicitly teach the claimed mol% relative to the quaternary ammonium salt for claim 1 or claim 2; however, it would be obvious to the skilled artisan that the amount of cross-linking agent required would be a result-effective variable dependent on the compounds being linked and the desired properties of the resulting block co-polymer. Li teaches if there is too little cross-linking agent, the produced polymer is not sufficiently cross linked and may have inferior mechanical properties and poor ionic conductivity [Li pgs. 5-6, 3.1.1. polymer engineering]. The skilled artisan would further understand if more cross-linking agent is provided than is necessary for sufficient cross-linking, there is no benefit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that determining the workable range of cross-linking molarity with respect to other components of the polymer membrane, such as the quaternary ammonium salt, merely requires routine experimentation to provide sufficient cross-linking to obtain the required properties of the polymer membrane, such as conductivity or strength. Routine experimentation to determine the relative amount of cross-linking agent would be obvious per MPEP 2144.05II, A. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Thus, as it applies to claim 1 and claim 2 mol % of cross-linking agent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Li’s teachings about the relationship between cross-linking and conductivity/mechanical strength as a result-effective variable with the conductive membrane of Willis for the predictable result of a providing a sufficiently cross-linked conductive membrane with workable ionic conductivity and mechanical strength [Willis 0297-0302, 0333 and throughout; Li pgs. 5-6 and throughout].
c) at least one salt selected from lithium salt, sodium salt, and mixtures thereof [Willis 0367, example 6 with NaBF4 reads on the claimed sodium salt]; and
d) an ionic liquid [Willis 0303, 0308]
Willis teaches calculating conductivity of the polymer membrane and the relationship between permeability of the membrane to salts and conductivity [Willis 0333-0339] but does not teach the conductivity of the membranes, and, therefore, is silent to the claimed film obtained from the polyelectrolyte composition has an ionic conductivity at 30 ° C of greater than 2.0 x 10-6 S cm-1 of claim 1 or 2.5 x 10-6 to 1.0 x 10-3 S cm-1 of claim 5. The ionic conductivity, however, would be considered a property of a film made from the polymer composition. Per MPEP 2112.01, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Thus, the claimed conductivity would be inherently obvious over Willis per MPEP 2112.01, especially in view of Li’s teachings about the relationship between cross-linking and conductivity, as described above. Thus, without evidence of criticality or unexpected results, Willis in view of Li meets the limitation regarding conductivity of claim 1 and claim 5.
For purpose of compact prosecution, Hillmyer teaches polymer electrolyte membranes from cross-linked styrenic block copolymers [Hillmyer 0032-0041 and throughout] with high ionic conductivity [Hillmyer 0003, 0032, and throughout]. Hillmyer teaches a target conductivity of 1 X 10-3 S cm-1 [Hillmyer 0088] and provides sample results of approximately 5 X 10-4 S cm-1 to 5 X 10-5 S cm-1 at 30 ° C as a function of the volume fraction of ionic liquid in the polymer electrolyte [Hillmyer 0088 and throughout Fig. 12]. Hillmyer’s examples anticipate the ionic conductivity ranges or claim 1 and claim 5. In view of Hillyer’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that Willis’ membranes either have the claimed conductivity of claims 1 and 5 or with adjustment of the ionic liquid, as taught by Willis, and sufficient cross-linking, in view of Li’s teachings about the relationship between cross-linking and ionic conductivity, would have the claimed conductivity of claims 1 and 5. See MPEP 2143 (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Willis discloses the polyelectrolyte composition of claim 1, wherein the polyelectrolyte composition has a conducting phase containing a combination of the lithium salt and the ionic liquid, and wherein a volume fraction of the conducting phase is 0.5 to 0.8, based on total volume of the polyelectrolyte composition [Willis is silent to volume fraction; however, Hillmyer teaches a polyelectrolyte membrane with a conducting phase [Hillmyer 0090 and throughout] containing ionic liquid and salts [0046 and throughout] in the range of 0 to 0.7 [Hillmyer 0046-0047 and throughout], which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Hillmyer’s teachings about the conducting phase and the volume fraction of conducting compounds with Willis’ conductive membrane for the predictable result of a conductive membrane with conductivity suited for the application [Willis 0308, 0333 and throughout; Hillmyer 0046-0048, 0090 and throughout.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Willis teaches the polyelectrolyte composition of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach wherein the polyelectrolyte composition comprises a mol ratio of the lithium salt to the quaternary ammonium salt of 5:1 to 20:1.
It would be expected by the skilled artisan that the amount of lithium salt and the amount of quaternary ammonium salts and thus the ratio of the two would be result-effective variables. The quaternary ammonium salts bond with or are the D block polymer [Willis throughout]; thus the amount of ammonium salts would depend on the cross-linking of the ammonium salt with the multiblock polymer units. Lithium salts serve the function of ionic components in a conductive membrane [Hillmyer throughout] and thus the amount required would depend on the application. Thus, the lithium salt and quaternary ammonium salts would be used in a ratio as needed to obtain the required properties. Routine experimentation to determine the ratio of lithium salt to quaternary ammonium salt would be obvious per MPEP 2144.05II, A. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the workable range of the ratio of lithium salt and quaternary ammonium salt would be determined through routine experimentation by balancing the required ionic conductivity, bonding, and other properties as required for the specific application. Without evidence of the criticality or unexpected results of the claimed range, the prior art applies to the limitation.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Willis discloses the polyelectrolyte composition of claim 1, wherein the styrenic block copolymer precursor has a polystyrene content of 5 to 70 wt.%, based on total weight of the SBC precursor [Willis 0298-0299 and throughout, Willis teaches that the hardness, flexibility, strength, water/anion transport, barrier properties, flexibility and elasticity, and thermal stability can be adjusted by balancing the polystyrene content, which makes the polystyrene content a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that determining the workable range of polystyrene content requires balancing the criticality of each of these properties for the specific application of the polyelectrolyte, which is achieved through routine experimentation. Routine experimentation to determine the polystyrene content would be obvious per MPEP 2144.05II, A. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Without evidence of the criticality or unexpected results of the claimed range, the prior art applies to the limitation.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Willis discloses the polyelectrolyte composition of claim 1, wherein the styrenic block copolymer precursor has a molecular weight (Mp) of 20 to 400 kg/mol [Willis 0008, 0027 Willis teaches at least two A blocks of 1 to 60 kg/mol, at least one D block of 1 to 100 kg/mol, and at least one interior B block of 1 to 100 kg/mol. Given the MW of each of the blocks taught by Willis, the skilled artisan would expect Willis’ block copolymer to overlap the claimed range or be merely close. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" or is ”merely close” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Without evidence of the criticality or unexpected results of the claimed range, the prior art applies to the limitation.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Willis discloses the polyelectrolyte composition of claim 1, wherein: the substituted vinyl aromatic monomer is selected from the group consisting of ortho-methyl styrene, ortho-ethyl styrene, ortho-n-propyl styrene, ortho-iso-propyl styrene, ortho-n-butyl styrene, ortho-iso-butyl styrene, ortho-sec-butyl styrene, ortho-tert-butyl styrene, ortho-decyl styrene, isomers of ortho-dodecyl styrene, para-methyl styrene, para-ethyl styrene, para-n-propyl styrene, para-iso-propyl styrene, para-n-butyl styrene, para-iso-butyl styrene, para-sec-butyl styrene, para-tert-butyl styrene, para-decyl styrene, isomers of para-dodecyl styrene, ortho,para-dimethyl styrene, ortho,para-diethyl styrene, ortho,para-di(n-propyl) styrene, ortho,para-di(iso-propyl) styrene, ortho,para-di(n-butyl) styrene, ortho,para-di(iso-butyl) styrene, ortho,para-di(sec-butyl) styrene, ortho,para-di(tert-butyl) styrene, ortho,para-didecyl styrene, isomers of ortho,para-didodecyl styrene, isomers of vinyl toluene, vinyl xylene, 1,1-vinyl biphenyl, vinyl naphthalene, vinyl anthracene, and mixtures thereof; the vinyl aromatic monomer is selected from the group consisting of styrene, alpha-methylstyrene, and mixtures thereof [Willis 0158, 0120-0121 and throughout, Willis teaches the block D polymer monomers can be any of the block A and B monomers and teaches all of the monomers listed except for isomers of vinyl toluene, vinyl xylene, 1,1-vinyl biphenyl, vinyl naphthalene, vinyl anthracene, and mixtures thereof.] ; and
wherein the styrenic block copolymer precursor has a configuration selected from A-D, D-A-D, A-D-A, (A-D)nX, (D-A-D)nX, (A-D-A)nX, and mixtures thereof, wherein X is a residue of a coupling agent, and n is from 2 to 30 [Willis 0029, 0049 and throughout, Willis teaches A-D-A, (A-D)nX, and (A-D-A)nX where X is a residue of a coupling agent and n is 2 to 30.}.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Willis discloses the polyelectrolyte composition of claim 1, wherein the styrenic block copolymer precursor further comprises the block B, and wherein the conjugated diene monomer is selected from the group consisting of 1,3-butadiene, isoprene, 2,3-dimethyl-1,3-butadiene, 1-phenyl-1,3-butadiene, 1,3-pentadiene, 1,3-hexadiene, 3-butyl-1,3-octadiene, myrcene, farnesene, 1,3-cyclohexadiene, piperylene, and mixtures thereof [Willis 0132 and throughout, Willis teaches butadienes, isoprene, 1,3-cyclodiene monomers, such as 1,3-cyclohexadiene, 1,3-cycloheptadiene and 1,3-cyclooctadiene, preferably 1,3-cyclohexadiene.] ; and
wherein the styrenic block copolymer precursor has a configuration selected from D-B, D-B-D, D-B-A, D-A-B, A-D-B, (D-B)nX, (D-B-D)nX, (D-B-A)nX, (D-A-B)nX, (A-D-B)nX, A-B-D, A-D-B, A-B-D-Bʹ, D-B-A-Bʹ, A-B-D-A, A-D-B-A, A-B-D-Bʹ-A, A-D-B-D-A, A-B-A-D-A, A-D-A-B-A, A-B-D-Bʹ-D, A-B-D-A-D, A-D-B-A-D, A-B-D-A-Bʹ, A-D-B-A-Bʹ, (A-B-D)nX, (A-D-B)nX, (A-B-D-Bʹ)nX, (A-B-D-A)nX, (A-D-B-A)nX, (B-A-Bʹ-D)nX, and mixtures thereof, wherein X is a residue of a coupling agent, n is from 2 to 30, and blocks B and Bʹ are same or different and each independently derived from the conjugated diene monomer [Willis 0029, 0049, 0127-0132, and throughout, Willis teaches (A-D-B)nX, A-B-D-Bʹ-A, (A-B-D)nX, (A-D-B)nX wherein n is an integer from 2 to about 30, and X is a coupling agent residue, and wherein the plurality of A blocks, B blocks, or D blocks are the same or different.]; and
wherein, after hydrogenation, each block B and Bʹ independently has a hydrogenation level of greater than 80 mol%, based on total mol of the polymerized conjugated diene monomer in each block B and Bʹ [Willis 0210, Willis teaches hydrogenation of the conjugated dienes such that 90% over the conjugated diene double bonds have been reduced, which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.].
Regarding Claim 12, modified Willis discloses the polyelectrolyte composition of claim 11, wherein each block B and Bʹ, before hydrogenation, has a vinyl content of 5 to 35 wt.%, based on weight of the polymerized conjugated diene monomer in each block B and Bʹ [Willis 0132, Willis teaches 20 to 80 mol%, which would be expect to overlap or be merely close to the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" or is “merely close” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Without evidence of the criticality or unexpected results of the claimed range, the prior art applies to the limitation.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Willis discloses the polyelectrolyte composition of claim 1, wherein each block A and D independently has a hydrogenation level of less than 30 mol%, based on mol of the polymerized monomer in each block A and D [Willis 0028, 0129, 0132, 0159, 0166, Willis teaches optional and selective hydrogenation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of Willis is there can be no hydrogenation or some level of hydrogenation depending on the block monomer and the required conversions for forming the block co-polymers. It would be obvious from Willis’ teachings that the hydrogenation level is a result-effective variable dependent on the specific polymerized monomer in each block A and D and their non-hydrogenated segments. For example, a low hydrogenation level would be required for monomers with a low number of non-hydrogenated segments. A higher hydrogenation level would be needed for a monomers with a greater number of non-hydrogenated segments for thermal stability, UV light stability, oxidative stability, and weatherability of the final polymer [Willis 0208]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that determining the workable range of hydrogenation level requires routine experimentation balancing the required properties as discussed above for the specific monomers. Routine experimentation to determine the hydrogenation level would be obvious per MPEP 2144.05II, A. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Without evidence of the criticality or unexpected results of the claimed range, the prior art applies to the limitation.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Willis teaches the polyelectrolyte composition of claim 1, wherein the styrenic block copolymer precursor further comprises the block B, and wherein each block A has a molecular weight (Mp) of 10 to 50 kg/mol [Willis 0008 and throughout, block A MP of 1 to 60 kg/mol overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.]; each block B has a molecular weight (Mp) of 2 to 20 kg/mol [Willis 0047-0048, type iv, block B molecular weight range of 1 to 100 kg/mol, which overlaps and obviates the claimed ranges. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.]; and each block D has a molecular weight (Mp) of 15 to 60 kg/mol [Willis 0008 and throughout, block D MW of 1 to 100 kg/mol overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.].
Regarding Claim 15, modified Willis teaches the polyelectrolyte composition of claim 1, wherein the block D has at least a quaternary ammonium salt [Willis abstract, 0137-0149, Quaternization of onium salt of the functionalized block D polymer unit is generally discussed throughout.].
Regarding Claim 16, modified Willis teaches the polyelectrolyte composition of claim 1, wherein the ionic liquid is selected from the group consisting of ethylmethylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (EMITFSI), ethylmethylimidazolium bis(pentafluoroethanesulfonyl)imide (EMIPFSI), butylmethylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (BMITFSI), butylmethylimidazolium bis(pentafluoroethanesulfonyl)imide (BMIPFSI), 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium tetrafluoroborate ([Bmim][BF4]), N-butyl-N31 methylpyrrolidinium bis(3 trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (PYR14+TFSI-I), trihexyl(tetradecyl)phosphoniumdicyanamide [P6,6,6,14][DCA], trihexyl(tetradecyl)phosphoniumbis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl) [P6,6,6,14][TFMS], trihexyl(tetradecyl)phosphonium chloride [P6,6,6,14][Cl], trihexyl(tetradecyl)phosphoniumdodecyl benzenesulfonate [P6,6,6,14][DBS], trihexyl(tetradecyl)phosphoniummethanesulfonate [P6,6,6,14] [MS], and mixtures thereof [Willis teaches ionic liquids but does not teach specific ionic liquids. Hillmyer teaches BMITFSI, EMITFSI [Hillmyer 0045]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Hillmyer’s teaching of specific compounds for use as ionic liquids in Willis’ conductive membrane with ionic liquids for the predictable result of a membrane with sufficient ionic conductivity [Hillmyer 0032].
Regarding Claim 17, modified Willis teaches the polyelectrolyte composition of claim 1, wherein the lithium salt is selected from the group consisting of bis(trifluoromethane)sulfonimide (Li-TFSI), lithium hexafluorophosphate (Li-PF6), lithium perchlorate (LiClO4), lithium borofluoride (LiBF4), lithium hexafluoroarsenide (LiAsF6), lithium trifluoro-metasulfonate (LiCF3SO3), bis-trifluoromethyl sulfonylimide lithium (LiN(CF3SO2)2, lithium bis(oxalato)borate (LiB(C2O4)2), lithium oxalyldifluoroborate (LiBF2C2O4), lithium nitrate (LiNO3), Li-fluoroalkyl-phosphates (LiPF3(CF2CF3)3), lithium bisperfluoroethysulfonylimide (LiBETI), lithium thiocyanate (LiSCN), lithium dicyanamide (LiN(CN)2), Li(CF3SO2)3C, LiN(SO2C2F5)2, LiN(SO2CF3)2, LiN(SO2CF2CF3)2, lithium alkyl fluorophosphates, LiPF3(CF3)3, and mixtures thereof [Willis does not explicitly teach lithium salt. Hillmyer teaches LiTFSI and LiPF6 [Hillmyer 0045]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Hillmyer’s teaching of specific compounds for use as ionic liquids in Willis’ conductive membrane with ionic liquids for the predictable result of a membrane with sufficient ionic conductivity [Hillmyer 0032].
Regarding Claim 18, modified Willis teaches the polyelectrolyte composition of claim 1, wherein the film has a thickness of 10 to 200 µm [Willis 0287, Willis teaches 0.1 µm to 1000 µm, or typically from 0.5 to about 200 μm, e.g., from about 1 to about 100 μm, or from about 1 to about 35 μm, which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.].
Regarding Claim 19, Willis in view of Li and Hillmyer teaches a lithium ion battery comprising the film obtained from the polyelectrolyte composition of claim 1. Willis does not explicitly teach a Li ion battery. Li teaches a solid electrolyte [Li throughout] and Hillmyer teaches a polyelectrolyte membrane as an electrolyte for use in a lithium ion battery [Hillmyer, discussed throughout]; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that modified Willis’ film could be used in a lithium ion battery as an electrolyte. Willis nor Li nor Hillmyer teach the battery with a retention capacity of greater than 80% after at least 1000 charge / discharge cycles at room temperature; however, the retention capacity would be considered a property of a battery made from the polymer electrolyte. Per MPEP 2112.01, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Thus, the claimed retention capacity would be inherently obvious over modified Willis per MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, Willis in view of Li and Hillmyer meets the limitation without evidence of criticality of unexpected results.
Regarding Claim 20, Willis in view of Li and Hillmyer teaches a lithium ion battery comprising the film obtained from the polyelectrolyte composition of claim 1. Willis does not explicitly teach a Li ion battery. Li teaches a solid electrolyte [Li throughout] and Hillmyer teaches a polyelectrolyte membrane as an electrolyte for use in a lithium ion battery; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that modified Willis’ film could be used in a lithium ion battery as an electrolyte. Hillmyer and Li both disclose a solid electrolyte [Li throughout] or PEM deposited on an anode or on a cathode [Hillmyer 0005]. Regarding the limitation deposited by any of casting, coating, dipping process, Willis discloses casting [Willis 0187, 0271 and throughout] and thus meets the limitation. Further, for purpose of compact prosecution, the limitation can be considered a product by process limitation per MPEP 2113. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process."
Willis nor Li nor Hillmyer teach the battery with a retention capacity of greater than 80% after at least 1000 charge / discharge cycles at room temperature; however, the retention capacity would be considered a property of a battery made from the polymer electrolyte. Per MPEP 2112.01, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Thus, the claimed retention capacity would be inherently obvious over modified Willis per MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, Willis in view of Li and Hillmyer meets the limitation without evidence of criticality of unexpected results.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis in view of Li and Hillmyer, as provided for claim 1 above, in further view of Yang et al. [In-situ synthesis of cross-linked imidazolium functionalized Poly(styrene-b-isobutylene-b-styrene) for anion exchange membranes, Polymer, Volume 224, 2021, 123682], hereinafter Yang.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Willis is silent to polyelectrolyte composition of claim 1, wherein the cross-linking agent is selected from the group consisting of 1,4-bis(imidazol-1-yl)-butane, 1,4-Bis(2-methyl-1H-imidazol-1-yl)butane, 1,4-bis(2-phenylimidazol)butane, 1,6-diimidazolehexane, 1,6-bis(2-ethylimidazolyl)butane, 1,6-bis(2-phenylimidazol)butane, 1,8-diimidazoleoctane, 1,8-bis(2-ethylimidazolyl)butane, 1,8-bis(2-phenylimidazol)butane, 1,10-diimidazoledecane, 1,10-bis(2-ethylimidazolyl)butane, and 1,10-bis(2-phenylimidazol)butane, and mixtures thereof.
Yang teaches conductive membranes with styrenic triblock co-polymers [Yang abstract, pg. 2, and throughout] cross-linked with 1,1’-(1,6-hexanediyl)bisimidazole [Yang discussed throughout], which reads on the claimed 1,6-diimidazolehexane as a cross-linking agent. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Yang’s teachings about an conductive membrane with 1,6-diimidazolehexane as a cross-linking agent for styrenic block copolymers with modified Willis’ membrane for the predictable result of a cross-linked styrenic block copolymer with ionic conductivity, chemical stability, and mechanical properties appropriate for use as a conductive membrane [Willis abstract and throughout, Yang abstract and throughout].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis in view of Li and Hillmyer, as provided for claim 1 above, as evidenced by Taheri et al. [Cross-linked chitosan with a dicationic ionic liquid as a recyclable biopolymer-supported catalyst for cycloaddition of carbon dioxide with epoxides into cyclic carbonates, New J.Chem., (2018), 42, 587], hereinafter Taheri.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Willis teaches the polyelectrolyte composition of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach wherein a mol ratio of the ionic liquid to the quaternary ammonium salt is 0.1:1 to 1:1. It would be expected by the skilled artisan that the amount of ionic liquid and the amount of quaternary ammonium salts and thus the ratio of the two would be a result-effective variable. As evidenced by Taheri, the ionic liquid composition and quantity would depend on its application for use and in some applications its high viscosity is prohibitive[Taheri p. 588, introduction].
The quaternary ammonium salts bond with or are the D block polymer [Willis throughout]; thus the amount of ammonium salts would depend on the cross-linking of the ammonium salt with the multiblock polymer units. Further, the amounts of both the ionic liquid and the quaternary ammonium salts would affect other properties such as the ionic conductivity and strength of the membrane [Hillmyer throughout]. Thus, the ionic liquid and quaternary ammonium salts would be used in a ratio as needed to obtain the required properties. Routine experimentation to determine the ratio of ionic liquid to quaternary ammonium salt would be obvious per MPEP 2144.05II, A. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the workable range of ionic liquid and quaternary ammonium salt would be determined through routine experimentation by balancing the required viscosity, ionic conductivity, strength, and bonding and other properties as required for the specific application. Without evidence of the criticality or unexpected results of the claimed range, the prior art applies to the limitation.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. T. LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1681. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/M. T. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 1724 /BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724