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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, please correct the grammar in “the epoxy alkane crosslinker selected at least one of”.
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 1-6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren et al. (“Ren”, Solid State Ionics 180 (2009) 693-697) in view of Xu et al. (“Xu”, CN111224151A; citations from machine translation).
Regarding claims 1-6 and 9-13, Ren discloses polymer electrolytes based on poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) with crosslinked poly(ethylene glycol) for lithium batteries (title). Ren teaches in section 2.2 Preparation of polymer electrolytes (pg.694): PEG with both epoxy chain ends (DIEPEG) was prepared and purified from PEG-400 according to literature. The proper PVDF-HFP and PEI were added into a mixture of acetone and DI water. The obtained viscous solution was then cast onto a glass plate. The wet membrane was placed in a ventilating cabinet for 30 min to evaporate the acetone. The resulting membrane was immediately put into the oven to crosslink PEI with DIEPEG. Afterwards the membrane was dried. Finally, the semi-interpenetrating polymer networks (SIPN) of PVDF-HFP with crosslinked PEG were obtained. During the preparation, the molar ratio of the amine group in PEI with epoxy group in DIEPEG was optimized to maintain 2:1 all the time. The dry microporous membranes were activated by soaking in an electrolyte solution composed of 1M LiPF6 in EC and DMC. After swelling, the excess liquid electrolyte on the surface was removed by pressing lightly between two sheets of filter paper.
Ren does not teach a modified poly(ethylene oxide)-based polymer and an epoxy alkane crosslinker or the ratio of EO group to Li+ ranging from 1:1 to 3:1.
However, Xu discloses a manufacturing method of an electrolyte composition and teaches mixing a modified polyoxyethylene-based material and a siloxane-based material in a solvent to form a mixture, wherein a group of the modified polyoxyethylene-based material has an amine group at the end (pg. 1). The electrolyte composition is formed by heating modified polyoxyethylene materials and siloxane materials to undergo a crosslinking reaction ([0008]). The electrolyte composition has polyoxyethylene polymer segments that are straightened due to a cross-linking reaction, which can reduce the crystallinity of polyoxyethylene and provide additional transport channels for conductive ions (e.g., lithium ions) so that conductive ions can be easily conducted in the electrolyte ([0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the siloxane-based material and modified polyoxyethylene-based material in Ren to reduce the crystallinity of polyoxyethylene and provide additional transport channels for conductive ions (e.g., lithium ions) so that conductive ions can be easily conducted in the electrolyte ([0008]), as taught by Xu. Determining the optimal ratio of EO to Li+ would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art and could be determined through routine optimization.
Xu teaches lithium salts include LiTFSI, which is an obvious variant of LIFSI ([0048]). The FSI- anion would aggregate in the network structure to form a cluster.
As to the limitations requiring C-C coupling and an alkalescent environment, those would be present in Ren modified by Xu.
As to claim 8, Xu teaches the siloxane material comprises at least one of polyhedraloligomeric silsesquioxane (POSS) and its derivatives ([0012]).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren and Xu as applied above, and further in view of Visco et al. (“Visco”, US 2014/0170465 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, the above references are silent as to LLZO.
Visco teaches suitable solid-state ion conductor materials for the membrane include LLZO ([0098]) and can be modified by doping different elements to enhance performance such as chemical compatibility, ease of fabrication, reducing cost, and increasing conductivity ([0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include LLZO as it is a known solid-state ion conductor for membranes and enhances performance and increases conductivity when provided with doped elements, as taught by Visco.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL H. LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2548. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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 Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
DANIEL H. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/DANIEL H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights