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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed September 7, 2023 & November 7, 2024 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and an initialed copied is attached herewith.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 discloses
PNG
media_image1.png
125
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
or any unmodified polymer wherein none of the constituents are defined.. Therefore, all of the elements can read on most polymer. Laine US Pub. 2009/0226355 is applied to anticipate these limitations, but also a secondary reference in anticipation of a correction defining the 11 other polymers with more structural clarity. Laine does not teach the other 11 polymers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, R, R1, R2, R3, R4 across the 12 polymers are vague and indefinite because the are not defined. An appropriate correction is required.
In claim 1, a, b, c, n, m, q, across the 12 polymers are vague and indefinite because the chain length counts are not defined. An appropriate correction is required.
In claim 1,
PNG
media_image2.png
182
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is vague and indefinite because the none of the constituents are defined. An appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-13 are rejected based on the dependency on claim 1.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “a temperature between any two of the preceding values”, and the claim also recites “a temperature of about 200 °C, 250 °C, 300 °C, 350 °C, 400 °C, 450 °C, or 500 °C” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. An appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 & 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laine US Pub. 2009/0226355.
With respect to claim 1, Laine teaches a conductive polymer having repeating subunits defined by any unmodified polymer having
PNG
media_image1.png
125
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
or any unmodified polymer
(
PNG
media_image3.png
208
306
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[0041])
wherein at least one R group, side chain, or alkyl or aryl side chain, of at least one subunit of the unmodified polymer is removed or separated from the unmodified polymer (The R group is selected such that upon application of heat and/or energy, the R group is easily removed or eliminated, for example as an RH group.; [0041]).
With respect to claim 3, wherein the R group, side chain, or alkyl or aryl side chain is removed or separated from the polymer by heating or exposure to light (hv) (The R group is selected such that upon application of heat and/or energy, the R group is easily removed or eliminated, for example as an RH group.; [0041]). .
With respect to claim 11, method for producing a conductive polymer, the method comprising: heating, or exposing to light (hv), an unmodified polymer such that at least one R group of at least one subunit of the unmodified polymer is removed or separated from the unmodified polymer resulting in the formation of a conductive polymer of claim 1 (The R group is selected such that upon application of heat and/or energy, the R group is easily removed or eliminated, for example as an RH group.; [0041]).
With respect to claim 12, wherein the heating step comprises heating the unmodified polymer to a temperature of about 200 °C, 250 °C, 300 °C, 350 °C, 400 °C, 450 °C, or 500 °C, or a temperature between any two of the preceding values, such that at least one R group of at least one subunit of the unmodified polymer is removed or separated from the unmodified polymer (the present methods include heating the polysilane polymer at temperature ranges of greater than or equal to about 350 oC. to less than or equal to about 1,000o C; [0046]).
Therefore, the instant claims are anticipated by Laine.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 & 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. US Pub. 20160013491 in view of Laine US Pub. 2009/0226355.
With respect to claim 1, Liu teaches a conductive polymer having repeating subunits defined by any unmodified polymer having any one of the following formulae:
PNG
media_image4.png
152
512
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(
PNG
media_image5.png
138
425
media_image5.png
Greyscale
;Fig. 16c) or any unmodified polymer.
With respect to claim 4,a thin film electrode comprising a first layer comprising the conductive polymer of claim 1 on a second layer of current collector comprising an electricity conductive material (The Polymer was coated on Cu current collector; [0070]). With respect to claim 5, the conductive material is a metal, such as silver, copper, gold, aluminum, iron, steel, brass, bronze, or mercury (Cu current collector; [0070]). With respect to claim 10, a lithium ion battery having a negative electrode, wherein said electrode comprises a thin film electrode of claim 3 (Si anode made with the conductive binder; [0015]).
Liu does not teach or suggest: wherein at least one R group, side chain, or alkyl or aryl side chain, of at least one subunit of the unmodified polymer is removed or separated from the unmodified polymer (claim 1); at least about 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, or 90%, or about 100% of the R groups of the unmodified polymer are removed or separated from the polymer (claim 2); the R group, side chain, or alkyl or aryl side chain is removed or separated from the polymer by heating or exposure to light (hv) (claim 3);method for producing a conductive polymer, the method comprising: heating, or exposing to light (hv), an unmodified polymer such that at least one R group of at least one subunit of the unmodified polymer is removed or separated from the unmodified polymer resulting in the formation of a conductive polymer of claim 1 (claim 11); the heating step comprises heating the unmodified polymer to a temperature of about 200 °C, 250 °C, 300 °C, 350 °C, 400 °C, 450 °C, or 500 °C, or a temperature between any two of the preceding values, such that at least one R group of at least one subunit of the unmodified polymer is removed or separated from the unmodified polymer (claim 12); wherein at least about 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, or 90%, or about 100% of the R groups of the unmodified polymer are removed or separated from the unmodified polymer (claim 13).
Laine teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: wherein at least one R group, side chain, or alkyl or aryl side chain, of at least one subunit of the unmodified polymer is removed or separated from the unmodified polymer (The R group is selected such that upon application of heat and/or energy, the R group is easily removed or eliminated, for example as an RH group.; [0041] ;claim 1); the R group, side chain, or alkyl or aryl side chain is removed or separated from the polymer by heating or exposure to light (hv) The R group is selected such that upon application of heat and/or energy, the R group is easily removed or eliminated, for example as an RH group.; [0041] ; (claim 3);method for producing a conductive polymer, the method comprising: heating, or exposing to light (hv), an unmodified polymer such that at least one R group of at least one subunit of the unmodified polymer is removed or separated from the unmodified polymer resulting in the formation of a conductive polymer of claim 1 (The R group is selected such that upon application of heat and/or energy, the R group is easily removed or eliminated, for example as an RH group.; [0041] ;claim 11); the heating step comprises heating the unmodified polymer to a temperature of about 200 °C, 250 °C, 300 °C, 350 °C, 400 °C, 450 °C, or 500 °C, or a temperature between any two of the preceding values, such that at least one R group of at least one subunit of the unmodified polymer is removed or separated from the unmodified polymer (the present methods include heating the polysilane polymer at temperature ranges of greater than or equal to about 350 oC. to less than or equal to about 1,000o C; [0046]; claim 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ at least one R group, side chain, or alkyl or aryl side chain, of at least one subunit of the unmodified polymer being removed or separated from the unmodified polymer, as taught by Laine, to the conductive polymer of Liu, in order to form an electrically conductive materials and result in high yield reactions.
With respect to at least about 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, or 90%, or about 100% of the R groups of the unmodified polymer are removed or separated from the polymer (claim 2); it would have been obvious in the conductive polymer Liu in view of Laine in order to increase conductivity. Furthermore, "where 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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to at least about 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, or 90%, or about 100% of the R groups of the unmodified polymer are removed or separated from the unmodified polymer (claim 13); it would have been obvious in the conductive polymer Liu in view of Laine in order to increase conductivity. Furthermore, "where 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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. US Pub. 20160013491 in view of Laine US Pub. 2009/0226355, and further in view of GUIDOTTI et al. US Pub. 20080289676.
Liu in view of Laine teach a conductive polymer as described in the rejection recited hereinabove.
Liu does not teach or suggest: the conductive material is graphite (claim 6).
GUIDOTTI teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: the conductive material is graphite (graphite current collector; [0046]; claim 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the graphite current collector of GUIDOTTI, in the conductive polymer Liu in view of Laine, as the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
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.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. US Pub. 20160013491 in view of Laine US Pub. 2009/0226355, and further in view of HUAYU et al. US Pub. 20190334165.
Liu in view of Laine teach a conductive polymer as described in the rejection recited hereinabove.
Liu does not teach or suggest: the first layer and the second layer completely cover a third layer comprising Li metal, Al, Sn, or Mg, or any material alloy comprising Li metal or Na or Mg (claim 7); the third layer is very thin, such as from about 0.1 nm to about 1 nm (claim 8); the third layer is thick, such as from about 1 nm to about 1 mm (claim 9).
HUAYU teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: the first layer and the second layer completely cover a third layer comprising Li metal, Al, Sn, or Mg, or any material alloy comprising Li metal or Na or Mg (Li metal on top of the active material layer; [0025] & Abstract; claim 7); the third layer is thick, such as from about 1 nm to about 1 mm ( thickness of the lithium layer is preferably 1-10 μm;[0051]; claim 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the Li metal of HUAYU, in the conductive polymer Liu in view of Laine, in order to provide an additional lithium source. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
With respect to the third layer being very thin, such as from about 0.1 nm to about 1 nm (claim 8);it would have been obvious in the conductive polymer Liu in view of Laine and HUAYU, as "where 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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). HUAYU teaches lithium layer is preferably 1-10 μm. See [0051].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE M WILLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1309. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Tiffany Legette, may 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Monique M Wills/
Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723