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 with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 5/21/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the newly amended claim 10 is not patentably distinct from the elected product claims.
This is not found persuasive because the currently amended claim 10 calls for specifically a compound of Formula 4, whereas the originally presented claim 1 calls for a moiety of Formula 1. Formula 1 is more broad than Formula 4, so the product of claim 1 could be made from a materially different process such as one that does not involve the compound of Formula 4. Therefore, the amended claim 10 is patentably distinct from the originally presented claim 1. The search burden is still present due to the classification differences presented in the original requirement for restriction.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/21/26.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [78] of the specification, “The positive electrode” should read “The negative electrode”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 14-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roeser et. al, 2017 (R) in view of US-20210175497-A1 (Su).
Regarding claim 1, R teaches an anthracene-based covalent organic framework (COF) (see Fig. 1 b, on page 978) comprising a first repeating unit (C2/L24-30, “DMTHA”, see also Fig. 1 b) and a second repeating unit (see Fig. 1 a, “SiO6---2-“ with 2M+ associated). The second repeating unit meets the structural requirements of the second repeating unit of the instant, shown in Formula 2 where A is taken to be Si.
PNG
media_image1.png
389
513
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The DMTHA of R does not meet the requirements of the first repeating unit of the instant. wherein the first repeating unit comprises a moiety of Formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
372
619
media_image2.png
Greyscale
or a reduced form thereof, wherein each of R and R2 is independently hydrogen, C1- C3 alkyl, halide, nitro, or nitrile.
R further does not teach a specific application of the COF.
Su teaches a covalent organic framework (COF) for use as a coating layer on a silicon composite electrode (Abstract). Su teaches the COF is formed from repeating units of 2,6-diaminoanthraquinone (DAAQ) [0008]. The structural formula is shown below.
PNG
media_image3.png
324
640
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Su teaches the benefit of the DAAQ coating is a higher electrical and ionic conductivity [0073].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to replace the DMTHA of R with the DAAQ of Su as the repeating unit for R in order to achieve the benefits of higher electrical and ionic conductivity. It would have been obvious to do because the DMTHA of R was one known repeating unit for COF for silicon materials and the DAAQ of Su is another known repeating unit for use in a COF for silicon materials with known benefits. The substitution of the the DAAQ of Su for the DMTHA of R would amount to no more than swapping known materials which have the same uses in order to achieve a known benefit.
The DAAQ of Su meets the structural requirements of the instant’s first repeating unit because the instant claim 1 states that the first repeating unit has groups R1 and R2 that may be nitrile groups and additionally that the equation may also be a reduced form of the equation. The amino groups of the DAAQ are reduced nitrile groups, so the DAAQ of Su meets the requirements of the instant claim 1.
Therefore, claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of R and Su.
Regarding claim 2, R teaches a ratio of the first repeating unit to the second repeating unit of 1:1 (see Fig. 1 b).
Regarding claim 3, as explained in the rejection of claim 1, Su teaches a repeating unit with reduced nitrile groups which means R1 and R2 are independently nitrile.
Regarding claim 5, R teaches SiO62- which meets the requirements of the second repeating unit when A is Si.
Regarding claim 7, R teaches SiO62- with two Li+ ions associated with it (see Fig. 1 b). This means that the second repeating unit of R has two electrons and two Li+.
Regarding claim 14, R does not teach the COF, a lithium salt, and a non-aqueous liquid solvent make up an SEI. R further does not teach a specific use for the COF.
Su teaches that COFs may be used as a coating for a silicon electrode to improve electrical and ionic conductivity [0073].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the combination of R and Su as a COF coating for the silicon electrode of Su in order to improve electrical and ionic conductivity. It would have been obvious to do because R teaches no specific use for the COF and Su provides a motivation to use the COF as a coating for a silicon electrode. A coating of COF would be between the bulk electrolyte and the electrode so it would be an SEI. Su teaches an EC/PC/DEC/EMC electrolyte [0058], which is a non-aqueous liquid electrolyte. Su teaches LiPF6 as a lithium salt [0058].
Therefore, claim 14 is unpatentable over R and Su.
Regarding claim 15, Su teaches the lithium salt is LiPF6 which meets the requirements of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Su teaches the electrolyte is EC/PC/DEC/EMC which meets the requirements of claim 16.
Regarding claim 19, Su teaches an electrochemical device comprising the COF as a coating for the silicon anode (which comprises an SEI as explained in the rejection of claim 14), a positive electrode, and a negative electrode wherein the SEI is disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode [0057-58]. The SEI is disposed between the positive and negative electrode because the negative active material is surrounded by the COF coating so no matter what the SEI is between the positive and negative electrode.
Claims 4, 8, 9, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roeser et. al, 2017 (R), US-20210175497-A1 (Su) in further view of US-20210242501-A1 (Sakamoto).
Regarding claim 4, Su teaches a quinone-based COF [0032].
The DAAQ of Su does not meet the requirements of the first repeating unit of the instant claim 4 where R1 and R2 are hydrogen.
Sakamoto teaches an electrolyte additive comprising anthraquinone (AQ) [0024]. Sakamoto teaches the electrolyte with the additive has a higher capacity and discharge capacity retention because the quinone additive reduces the resistance of the electrode-electrolyte interface [0102-103].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to replace the DAAQ of Su with the AQ of Sakamoto in order to achieve the benefits of higher capacity and discharge capacity when the COF is applied to a secondary battery. It would have been obvious to do because Su uses a quinone-based COF and Sakamoto teaches a quinone with clear benefits. This substitution would amount to no more than the substitution of one material for another that is capable of performing the same function with expected benefits to the substitution.
The AQ of Sakamoto meets the structural requirements of the first repeating unit of the instant claim 4 because it has H atoms in the same positions as R1 and R2 of Formula 1 of the instant.
Therefore, claim 4 is unpatentable over R, Su and Sakamoto.
Regarding claim 8, Su teaches a quinone-based COF [0032].
The DAAQ of Su does not meet the requirements of the first repeating unit of the instant claim 4 where R1 and R2 are hydrogen.
Sakamoto teaches an electrolyte additive comprising anthraquinone (AQ) [0024]. Sakamoto teaches the electrolyte with the additive has a higher capacity and discharge capacity retention because the quinone additive reduces the resistance of the electrode-electrolyte interface [0102-103].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to replace the DAAQ of Su with the AQ of Sakamoto in order to achieve the benefits of higher capacity and discharge capacity when the COF is applied to a secondary battery. It would have been obvious to do because Su uses a quinone-based COF and Sakamoto teaches a quinone with clear benefits. This substitution would amount to no more than the substitution of one material for another that is capable of performing the same function with expected benefits to the substitution.
The combination of R, Su, and Sakamoto teach a COF which satisfies the repeating unit shown in Formula 3 with the exception of explicitly teaching the 18 Li+. The only difference between Fig. 1 b of R is that it does not show the exact same parts of the repeating unit, however one could easily expand the drawing to reveal a formula that would be the same as that of the instant just by drawing out more repeating units. To address the lack of disclosure of the Li ions, R teaches the second repeating unit comprises two 2 alkali metal ions which may be lithium. In the case where 9 of the second repeating unit are shown, which is what is done in Formula 3 of the instant, there would be 18 lithium ions accounted for. Therefore, claim 8 is unpatentable over R, Su, and Sakamoto because the repeating units are identical and therefore must have the same amount of ions.
Regarding claim 9, R teaches SiO62- which meets the requirements of the second repeating unit when A is Si.
Regarding claim 17, the teachings of R and Su are taught in the rejection of claim 14. R teaches SiO62- which meets the requirements of the second repeating unit when A is Si.
The DAAQ of Su does not meet the requirements of the first repeating unit of the instant claim 17 where R1 and R2 are hydrogen.
Sakamoto teaches an electrolyte additive comprising anthraquinone (AQ) [0024]. Sakamoto teaches the electrolyte with the additive has a higher capacity and discharge capacity retention because the quinone additive reduces the resistance of the electrode-electrolyte interface [0102-103].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to replace the DAAQ of Su with the AQ of Sakamoto in order to achieve the benefits of higher capacity and discharge capacity when the COF is applied to a secondary battery. It would have been obvious to do because Su uses a quinone-based COF and Sakamoto teaches a quinone with clear benefits. This substitution would amount to no more than the substitution of one material for another that is capable of performing the same function with expected benefits to the substitution.
The AQ of Sakamoto meets the structural requirements of the first repeating unit of the instant claim 17 because it has H atoms in the same positions as R1 and R2 of Formula 1 of the instant.
Therefore, claim 17 is unpatentable over R, Su, and Sakamoto.
Regarding claim 18, Su teaches the lithium salt is LiPF6 [0058] and that the electrolyte is EC/PC/DEC/EMC [0058] which meets the requirements of claim 18.
Regarding claim 20, Su teaches a quinone-based COF [0032].
The DAAQ of Su does not meet the requirements of the first repeating unit of the instant claim 4 where R1 and R2 are hydrogen.
Sakamoto teaches an electrolyte additive comprising anthraquinone (AQ) [0024]. Sakamoto teaches the electrolyte with the additive has a higher capacity and discharge capacity retention because the quinone additive reduces the resistance of the electrode-electrolyte interface [0102-103].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to replace the DAAQ of Su with the AQ of Sakamoto in order to achieve the benefits of higher capacity and discharge capacity when the COF is applied to a secondary battery. It would have been obvious to do because Su uses a quinone-based COF and Sakamoto teaches a quinone with clear benefits. This substitution would amount to no more than the substitution of one material for another that is capable of performing the same function with expected benefits to the substitution.
The AQ of Sakamoto meets the structural requirements of the first repeating unit of the instant claim 20 because it has H atoms in the same positions as R1 and R2 of Formula 1 of the instant. The AQ of R, Su, and Sakamoto meets the requirements of the second repeating unit because R teaches SiO62- which meets the requirements of the second repeating unit when A is Si.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roeser et. al, 2017 (R), US-20210175497-A1 (Su), with evidence from Zha et. al, 2015 (Z).
Regarding claim 6, R teaches the COF is formed by reaction with an alkali base (C3/L5).
R nor Su explicitly teach the first repeating unit has electrons and Li+ ions.
Z teaches that the reduction of DAAQ with an alkali base creates a reduced form which has one electron and one alkali atom (Fig. 1 (C) caption). In the case of the combination of R and Su, the alkali base can contain Li so the alkali atom associated with the reduced DAAQ would be Li in that case. This means that the combination of R and Su would have first repeating units comprising one Li+ ion and one electron, as evidenced by so claim 6 is unpatentable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI whose telephone number is (571)272-6917. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M..
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.
/LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights