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 .
The amendment filed 6/5/26 has been considered and entered. Claim 15 has been cancelled. Claims 1-14 and 16-20 remain in the application for prosecution thereof.
Considering the amendment filed 6/5/26, the 35 USC 112 and 103 rejections have been withdrawn. However, the following rejection has been necessitated by the amendment.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiers et al. (9,300,010) in combination with Lu et al. (2018/0226682) further in combination with CN 110915055.
Wiers et al. (9,300,010) teaches a solid electrolyte comprising a metal-organic framework that comprises a Mg2(dobdc) and lithium isopropoxide wherein dobdc is 1,4-dioido-2,5 benzenedicarboxylate and the metal-organic framework comprises open metal cation Mg+2 sites (claimed unsaturated metal site) and isopropoxide anions grafted with the Mg+2 of the organic framework pinning them in place. A preparation method therefor comprises dissolving the solid portions of H4dobdc and Mg(No3)2-6H2O and heating same to produce the solid, forming an activated framework from the resulting solid, subjecting the activated framework and lithium isopropoxide to a grafting reaction in hexane, collecting a sample by means of filtration and then soaking same in a lithium tetrafluoroborate solution containing a mixture of EC and DEC (col. 1, line 25 – col. 7, line 35 and Figs. 1-10).
Wiers et al. (9,300,010) fails to teach the claimed anionic group comprising a substituted carboxylate and/or a sulfonate.
Lu et al. (2018/0226682) teaches a battery, comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode and a metal-organic framework slurry electrolyte wherein the battery may be a lithium, sodium, magnesium or zinc battery and the metal-organic framework comprises at least one of Cu3(BTC)2, AL3O(OH)(BTC)2, FE3O(OH)(BTC)2, MN3(BDC)3and a zirconium-based metal-organic framework. The degassed or activated MOF is soaked in a liquid electrolyte such that the anions (methanesulfonate and borate) or a metal salt bind to unsaturated meal sites of the MOF and spontaneously form anion-bound MOF channels [0010]- [0032]; [0056]-[0069].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wiers et al. (9,300,010) solid-state electrolyte to include sulfonate anions binding to the unsaturated metal site as evidenced by Lu et al. (2018/0226682) with the expectation of success in forming solid-state electrolytes.
Wiers et al. (9,300,010) in combination with Lu et al. (2018/0226682) fails to teach the anionic group formed in the porous coordination polymer by a grafting reaction using a substituted carboxylic acid or substituted sulfoacid.
CN 110915055 teaches a positive electrode, a negative electrode and metal-organic framework slurry electrolyte wherein the battery may be a lithium, sodium, magnesium or zinc battery and the metal organic framework comprises CU3(BTC)2, Al3O(OH)(BTC)2, Fe3O(OH)(BTC)2, Mn3(BDC)3 and a zirconium-based metal organic framework. The degassed or activated metal organic framework is soaked in a liquid electrolyte such that the anions of a metal salt bind (claimed grafting) to unsaturated metal sites of the metal organic framework and spontaneously form anion-bound metal organic framework channels (pg. 4-99).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to have modified Wiers et al. (9,300,010) in combination with Lu et al. (2018/0226682) process to include forming the anionic group in the porous coordination polymer by grafting Z(binding) using a substituted carboxylic or substituted sulfoacid as evidenced by CN 110915055 with the expectation of forming the solid state electrolyte.
Regarding claim 1, CN 110915055 teaches forming the anionic group by grafting, i.e. binding as detailed above.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites a thickness of 1-100 microns. The Examiner takes the position that the thickness would be a matter of design choice by one skilled in the art and would have been within the skill of a practitioner to form a thickness within eh claimed range absent a showing to the contrary.
Regarding claim 11, the amount of liquid electrolyte is from 10:1 to 1:1000 which would be inclusive of the claimed less than equal to 30% [0069].
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the use of binders and those claimed are conventional and would have been expected to be utilized for their know advantages.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Lu et al. (2018/0226682) teaches a mixed slurry coating and drying [0027]-[0029].
Regarding claim 16, Lu et al. (2018/0226682) teaches activation at 200-220C [0063].
Regarding claim 17, Lu et al. (2018/0226682) teaches the claimed metal cation salts including hexafluorophosphates [0020].
Regarding claim 18, Lu et al. (2018/0226682) teaches forming the slurry using a solvent [0015],[0018].
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Lu et al. (2018/0226682) teaches doe use in batteries [0059] and in electric vehicles which would meet the claimed electronic device [0004].
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiers et al. (9,300,010) in combination with Lu et al. (2018/0226682) further in combination with CN 110915055 in combination with Kitagawa et al. (2015/0004499).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Wiers et al. (9,300,010) in combination with Lu et al. (2018/0226682) further in combination with CN 110915055 are incorporated here.
Wiers et al. (9,300,010) in combination with Lu et al. (2018/0226682) further in combination with CN 110915055 fails to teach the addition of an organic ligand and the claimed ligands including R-Xn with the groups claimed.
Kitagawa et al. (2015/0004499) teaches forming a porous coordination polymer ionic liquid composite whereby the porous coordination polymer includes a metal-organic framework and the metal includes iron, chromium, aluminum, copper, etc. [0038]-[0051] and an organic ligand including biphenyldicarboxyic acids and terephthalic acid [0053]-[0062] which would meet the claimed R-Xn as the organic ligands are the same.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wiers et al. (9,300,010) in combination with Lu et al. (2018/0226682) further in combination with CN 110915055 by including the claimed organic ligand as evidenced by Kitagawa et al. (2015/0004499) with the expectation of success in forming MOF’s with metal sites for solid electrolytes.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 and 16-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argued the prior art did not teach the anionic group formed in the porous coordination polymer by a grafting reaction using a substituted carboxylic acid or substituted sulfoacid.
CN 110915055 teaches this as detailed above.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights