DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits for 18/409,815, filed 1/11/2024, which claims priority to Chinese application CN202310513066.X, filed 5/9/2023.
Claims 1-5 are pending, and are considered herein.
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 .
Relevant Prior Art
The Examiners wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following references, which are not currently applied in a rejection.
Zhou, et al., Chemical Engineering Journal 464 (2023) 142537: This reference teaches a method of providing a carbon nanopaper reinforced PEO electrolyte, but does not teach the inclusion of halloysite nanotubes comprising trimethyl phosphate.
Gray-Wannell, et al. Clay Minerals (2020), 55, 184-193: This reference teaches the adsorption of phosphate into halloysite nanotubes (Fig. 1), but does not teach adsorption of trimethyl phosphate, or the use of vacuum impregnation to adsorb the trimethyl phosphate into the halloysite nanotubes.
Yao, et al., Journal of Power Sources 144 (2005) 170-175: This reference teaches a lithium battery electrolyte with trimethyl phosphate, but does not teach that the trimethyl phosphate is encapsulated, particularly within a halloysite nanotube.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0097261 A1: This reference teaches a PEO electrolyte comprising halloysite nanotubes and LiTFSI (paragraphs [0004]-[0006]). This reference does not teach the inclusion of trimethyl phosphate, particularly trimethyl phosphate encapsulated into a halloysite nanotube.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0210782 A1: This reference teaches a PEO electrolyte comprising halloysite nanotubes and LiTFSI (paragraphs [0054]-[0056]). This reference does not teach the inclusion of trimethyl phosphate, particularly trimethyl phosphate encapsulated into a halloysite nanotube.
CN110078973A1 (provided in the IDS): The machine translation of this reference is provided herein. This reference teaches incorporation of a phosphate flame retardant into a halloysite nanotube (see page 2 of the provided machine translation). However, this reference does not teach the steps S22-S25 of Claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “HNT@TMP” in line 4. This term is not indefinite, because paragraph [0033] of the instant specification describes TMP as trimethyl phosphate and HNT as a halloysite nanotube, and lines 13-25 of Claim 1 describe the process in which the HNT@TMP material is prepared. However, Claim 1 does not include a description of what materials are referred to by the terms “HNT” or “TMP” in the first instance that each of these terms is recited (in line 4). The Examiner recommends amending line 4 of Claim 1 to recite “synthesizing a flame retardant-loaded multifunctional filler: trimethyl phosphate (TMP) adsorbed into an interior of halloysite nanotubes (HNT) (HNT@TMP).”
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 1-5 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.
Claim 1 recites “a normal pressure” in line 20. This limitation is indefinite, because it is unclear what the metes and bounds of “normal pressure” are.
Claims 2-5 are indefinite, because of their dependence on Claim 1.
Claim 4 further recites “a coating scale of the PEO-based solid electrolyte slurry is 13-25.” This limitation is indefinite, because the metes and bounds of “coating scale” are unclear.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Allison Bourke, can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/SADIE WHITE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights