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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16, in the reply filed on 24 July 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim is missing a period. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 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.
The term “mesoporous” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “mesoporous” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what porosity is being claimed with the term.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the nanopores" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 is rejected based upon their dependence on claim 6.
In regard to claims 8 and 9, the limitations regarding the comparison of a size of the nanopores to the nanoparticles with a weight ratio of 50-90 wt% or 83 wt% is indefinite as the Examiner cannot determine how a size of nanopores can be related to a weight ratio of nanoparticles.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the hydrophilic coating" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the claim is viewed to depend on --claim 12-- instead of “claim 11.”
Regarding claim 16, the claim is indefinite as the Examiner is unable to determine if the specific composition of NaV3O8 or NVO is required. For the purpose of examination, it is viewed that the compositions in the parenthesis merely regard “preferred” compositions and do not specifically limit the scope of the limitation.
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 1-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (WO 2023/018711; hereinafter “Lu”) in view of Seo et al. (“Structural and ferroelectric properties of P(VDF-TrFE) thin films depending on the annealing temperature.” Material Letters 238 (2019) 294-297; hereinafter “Seo”).
In regard to claims 1-2 and 4-9, Lu discloses a battery (electrochemical cell 110) comprising an anode 140; a cathode 120 in opposition from the anode; and a separator 130 made from PVDF separating the anode and the cathode wherein the separator is a mesoporous piezoelectric membrane of piezoelectric material (separator 130 is taught to be piezoelectric and to regulate ion transport thus necessitating mesoporosity to all for passage of ions as commonly understood in the art). See Figure 1, [00106] and [00125]..
Lu does not explicitly disclose extending along a plane and its polar direction is across the plane wherein a positive polarization is substantially facing the anode and a negative polarization is substantially facing the cathode, which is the definition of a ferroelectric material (spontaneous electric polarization) as recited in claim 2, or wherein the piezo electric material is P(VDF-TrFE) as recited in claims 4-5. Lu is also silent in regard to the specific porosity of the separator as recited in claims 6-9 although Lu does disclose wherein the pores are capable of ion transport as recited in claim 6. Nonetheless, it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined an optimal or workable range of porosity of the separator as recited in claims 1 and 6-9 to enable ion transport as desired through routine experimentation and without the creation of any new or unexpected results. “[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.” 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.).
Seo discloses that P(VDF-TrFE) thin films have been investigated for their ferroelectricity. Seo teaches that the addition of TrFE to P(VDF) allows for more crystallinity and formation of the desired ferroelectric beta phase. The beta phase is disclosed to have a strong ferroelectricity which is well understood, as by definition, to mean a piezoelectric material that additionally has the ability to have a spontaneous, switchable polarization. See the abstract and introduction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the P(VDF) separator membrane of Lu by adding TrFE in order to induce the beta phase and ferroelectric properties as disclosed by Seo for the purpose of gaining spontaneous, switchable polarization in the material.
In regard to claim 3, it is noted that piezoelectric material of the combined invention of Lu and Seo is of the same composition as the recited separator. Therefore, their properties, such as the d33 value, must be the same. See MPEP § 2112.01, II. Nonetheless, Lu discloses that the P(VDF) separator can have a d33 value of at least 1 pC/N or of at least 200 pC/N or “some other values in-between” as achieved by the manufacturing process. See [0092].
In regard to claims 10-11, Lu discloses that the separator can have a thickness of between 15 and 25 micrometers, or between 19 and 21 micrometers. See [0091]. Therefore, Lu discloses wherein the separator as a thickness within the range of 10-50 micrometers as recited in claim 10 and “approximately 20” micrometers as recited in claim 11.
In regard to claim 14, Lu discloses wherein the anode can have protrusions in the form of dendrites form on the anode and extend to the cathode. See [0093].
In regard to claim 15, Lu discloses wherein the anode can be zinc metal. See [0042] and [0093].
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Seo as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Jung et al. (KR 102550803 with reliance upon the machine translation; hereinafter “Jung”).
In regard to claims 12-13, Lu and Seo are silent in regard to a Al2O3 coating which is hydrophilic.
Jung discloses that a hard ceramic coating layer 140, made from alumina (Al2O3), can be formed on a separator 120 in a battery. The coating is taught to improve the lifespan of the separator as the piezoelectric properties of the coating can reduce local current density and prevent short-circuiting by dendrites. See the abstract on page 1, the “technical field” paragraph on pages 1-2, page 5 and the first paragraph on page 7. As the composition of the coating of Jung is the same as the recited composition, the coating must also have the same hydrophilic properties. Regarding composition claims, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the Al2O3 coating Jung with the separator of the above combination for the purpose of improving the lifespan of the separator by preventing short-circuiting from dendrite formation.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Seo as applied to claim 14 above and further in view of Dong et al. ("Sodium vanadium oxides: From nanostructured design to high-performance energy storage materials." Journal of Materials Science & Technology 121 (2022) 80-92; hereinafter “Dong”).
In regard to claim 16, Lu and Seo are silent in regard to wherein the cathode is a sodium vanadium oxide.
Dong discloses that a metal ion battery can be formed with a sodium vanadium oxide cathode and a zinc metal anode. See the “1. Introduction” section on the first page and the “3. Summary and outlook” section.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the sodium vanadium oxide cathode material of Dong for the cathode material in the above combination for the purpose of forming a battery with a cathode having low cost, good structural stability, and/or simple preparation process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights