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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: The use of “|” in the claim appears 4 times on lines 2 and 3. This is not standard notation, and is unclear. Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of examination, it is considered that the notation of “|” is a comma or hyphen depending on the instance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The use of “|” in the specification appears 26 times throughout. This is not standard notation, and is unclear. Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of examination, it is considered that the notation of “|” is a comma or hyphen depending on the instance.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al (CN 112786960 A1; machine translation) in view of Tsutomu et al (US 20210135272 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Pan teaches a composite solid-state electrolyte (Paragraph 0004; lithium ion covalent organic framework composite polymer electrolyte), comprising an ionic covalent organic framework (TpPa-SO3Li) comprising a repeating unit of Formula I (Paragraph 0007; lithiated covalent organic framework including TpPa-SO3Li). Pan provides drawing of formula of TpPa-SO3Li below which is the same as claimed formula 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
473
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pan teaches a lithium-covalent organic framework composite polymer electrolyte, comprising a lithium-covalent organic framework, a polymer, and a lithium salt (Paragraph 0005). While Pan does not teach a cationic poly(ionic liquid), it refers to the use of polymers in the composite electrolyte which help to form a conjugated structure between the electrons in the lithium-ion covalent organic framework, and the lone pair electrons on the polymer chain segments (Paragraph 0020). This is beneficial to improve the interaction between the lithium ion covalent organic framework and the polymer, and reducing the lithium ion diffusion barrier (Paragraph 0020). Furthermore, Pan teaches that the lithium ion transfer sites are introduced into the channels of the lithium ion covalent organic framework, providing a fast channel for the transfer of lithium ions between polymer chain segments.
Similarly, the instant specification provides a mechanism wherein the composite SSE of the instant disclosure can achieve rapid lithium ion conduction because of the gaps between iCOFs (such as TpPa-SO3Li) are filled with poly(ionic liquid), which results in the co-ordination structure between Li+ and poly(ionic liquid) in this composite SSE system, such as in the case of TpPa-SO3Li-p(BVIm-TFSI) SSE, the co-coordination structure generated between Li+TFSI- and the polycations of the BVIm polymer chain. The instant specification also states that the PIL fills the gaps between iCOFs, thereby reducing the contact resistance. Hence, the mechanism taught in Pan corresponds to the mechanism in the instant specification. Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include polymers in the electrolyte composite that are able to improve lithium ion conduction.
Tsutomu teaches a solid state electrolyte with a conductive polymer (Paragraph 0010) such that the polymer comprises an onium cation and an anion containing a halogen (Paragraph 0011). The onium cation includes 1-alkyl-3-vinylimidazolium cation (Paragraph 0049), and the anion can be bis (trifluoromethyl sulfonyl) imide anion (Paragraph 0056). This type of polymer is a poly(ionic liquid). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polyionic liquid of Tsutomu into the invention of Pan in order to improve conductivity and durability (Paragraph 0014, 0068).
Regarding Claim 2 to Claim 6,
Pan does not specifically teach that the cationic poly(ionic liquid) comprises a repeating unit of Formula II (as claimed) wherein R1 is selected from the group consisting of: and, wherein R2 is C1-C6 alkyl; and X- is an anion, and that the cationic poly(ionic liquid) is poly(1-butyl-3-vinylimidazolylium) bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide salt.
However, Tsutomu teaches a solid state electrolyte with a conductive polymer that includes 1-alkyl-3-vinylimidazolium cation (Paragraph 0049), and bis (trifluoromethyl sulfonyl) imide anion (Paragraph 0056). When the alkyl is selected as butyl then the polymer corresponds to the claimed entity. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polymer poly(1-butyl-3-vinylimidazolylium) bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide salt from Tsutomu into the electrolyte of Pan in order to improve conductivity and durability (Paragraph 0014, 0068).
Regarding Claim 7,
Pan teaches adding a lithium salt to the composite polymer electrolyte (Paragraph 0013). Lithium salt includes lithium perchlorate, lithium hexaflurophosphate etc.
Regarding Claim 8,
This is a product by process claim. The limitation wherein TpPa-SO3Li is prepared according to a method comprising combining 2,5-diaminobenzenesulfonate with 2,4,6-trihydroxybenzene-1,3,5-tricarbaldehyde thereby forming TpPa-SO3Li, is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Pan discloses Formula in drawing 1 which matches the claimed formula 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
473
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pan teaches making the covalent organic framework using 1,3,5-trialdehyde phloroglucinol (Tp), 120.7 mg of 2,5-diamino-1,4-benzenedisulfonic acid (Paragraph 0041). These chemicals are similar (if not the same) as the claimed chemicals.
Regarding Claim 9, and Claim 10,
Pan teaches that the covalent organic framework accounts for 0.02 to 80% of total mass of the polymer electrolyte (Paragraph 0005). This range includes the claimed range for TpPa-SO3Li at 10-50 wt% and 10-15.6 wt% of the total weight of the composite solid-state electrolyte.
Regarding Claim 11,
Pan teaches that the total mass percentage of polymer and lithium salt in the polymer electrolyte is 20 to 99.8% (Paragraph 0005). This entails that the percentage of polymer can be chosen such that the ratio between the covalent organic framework TpPa-SO3Li, and the polymer is within the mass ratio of 95:5 to 1:1. Accordingly, the polymer is chosen from Tsutomu to be poly(1-butyl-3-vinylimidazolylium) bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide salt as explained in above rejection. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that TpPa-SO3Li and poly(1-butyl-3-vinylimidazolylium) bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide salt are present in a mass ratio of 95:5 to 1:1 in order to improve ionic conductivity (Paragraph 0004).
Regarding Claim 12,
Pan does not include the use of an organic solvent or a plasticizer in the composite polymer electrolyte (Paragraph 0005; lithium-covalent organic framework composite polymer electrolyte, comprising a lithium-covalent organic framework, a polymer, and a lithium salt). In instances where the solvent of ethanol or water are added to mix the components, they are then heated and dried to remove the solvent from the mixture. This method has also been described in the instant disclosure.
Regarding Claim 13,
Pan teaches an all-solid-state lithium metal battery, comprising the composite solid-state electrolyte (Paragraph 0018).
Regarding Claim 14,
Pan teaches in the examples that the covalent organic framework composite polymer electrolyte is assembled into a coin cell battery (Paragraph 0064). A coin cell is akin to a button battery.
Regarding Claim 15,
Pan teaches the use of lithium cobalt oxide as the positive electrode material, and the use of lithium metal as the negative electrode material (Paragraph 0065). Pan teaches in the examples that the covalent organic framework composite polymer electrolyte is assembled into a coin cell battery (Paragraph 0064). A coin cell is akin to a button battery. Hence, Pan alludes to an all solid state lithium metal battery which includes the composite solid electrolyte and has the composition as claimed.
Regarding Claim 16,
Pan teaches that the covalent organic framework TpPa-SO3Li is mixed with a polymer (Paragraph 0038) in order to form the composite solid-state electrolyte. The polymer is chosen to be a poly ionic liquid as explained in the rejection of Claim 1 above in view of Tsutomu. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine TpPa-SO3Li with a poly ionic liquid as a method of making the composite electrolyte.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached on 571-272-8519. 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.
/SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights