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 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “The battery of claim 26m” should be changed to “The battery of claim 26”. 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 4-17 and 26-33 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 4 recites the limitation "the cathode" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 5-17 are similarly rejected as they incorporate all of the limitations of claim 4.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the chemical structure" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 11-17 are similarly rejected as they incorporate all of the limitations of claim 10.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the chemical structure" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 27-33 are similarly rejected as they incorporate all of the limitations of claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Holoubek et al. (Holoubek et al., Supporting Information for ACS Energy Letters 5.5 (2020): 1438-1447).
As to claim 1, Holoubek et al. discloses a low temperature-discharging lithium battery (see e.g. coin cell, pg. 3, para 1) comprising:
a lithium metal anode (see e.g. Li metal anode, pg. 3, para 1); a separator (see e.g. polypropylene membrane, pg. 3, para 1); a nickel metal oxide cathode (see e.g. NMC811 cathode, pg. 3, para 1); a lithium salt (see e.g. LiPF6, pg. 1, para 2);
a first solvent , having a low melting point, which is selected from either methyl propionate or butyl propionate (see e.g. MP/FEC (9:1), which comprises methyl propionate (MP) which reads on a first solvent, pg. 1, para 2, Table S1, and Fig. S4);
and a second solvent having a high electrochemical stability, which is selected from either fluoroethylene carbonate or ethylene carbonate (see e.g. MP/FEC (9:1), which comprises fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) which reads on a second solvent, pg. 1, para 2, Table S1, and Fig. S4);
wherein the first solvent and the second solvent are present at a volume ratio of (first solvent : second solvent) from (1.0 : 0.01) to (1.0 : 0.3) (see e.g. Fig. S4, MP/FEC (9:1) solvent comprises MP and FEC in a 9:1 ratio by volume. Because the ratio 9:1 is equivalent to (9/9):(1/9) = (1.0:0.11), this corresponds to a 1.0:0.11 by volume ratio, which lies within and thereby anticipates the claimed range of 1.0:0.01 to 1.0:0.3).
As to claim 2, Holoubek et al. discloses the battery of claim 1, wherein the lithium metal anode does not comprise graphite (see e.g. Li metal anode, pg. 3, para 1, there is no indication that this anode comprises graphite).
As to claim 3, Holoubek et al. discloses the battery of claim 2, wherein the nickel metal oxide cathode comprises an active material consisting of the group selected from NMC811, NMC622, NMC532, a mixed metal nickel-oxide with at least 50 weight % nickel, a mixed metal nickel-oxide with at least 5 weight % manganese and at least 5 weight % cobalt, and an aluminum-doped mixed metal nickel-oxide with at least 50 weight % nickel and at least 5 weight % aluminum (see e.g. NMC811 cathode, pg. 3, para 1).
As to claim 4, Holoubek et al. discloses the battery of claim 3, wherein the cathode further comprises an electrically conductive carbon (see e.g. super-P, which reads on an electrically conductive carbon, pg. 1, para 1) and a binder (see e.g. polyvinylidene fluoride, which reads on a binder, pg. 1, para 1).
As to claim 5, Holoubek et al. discloses the battery of claim 4, wherein the binder is polyvinylidene fluoride (see e.g. polyvinylidene fluoride, pg. 1, para 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holoubek et al. (Holoubek et al., et al., Supporting Information for ACS Energy Letters 5.5 (2020): 1438-1447) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Gin et al. (US 2012/0129045).
As to claim 6, Holoubek et al. discloses the battery of claim 4, but does not disclose a battery further comprising a charge transfer-assisting polymer coating that coats a liquid electrolyte-solid cathode interfacial surface of the nickel metal-oxide cathode.
Gin et al., also working in the field of low-temperature battery materials, teaches the use of a charge transfer-assisting polymer coating (see e.g. polymer electrolyte, Gin et al.: [0026]-[0027]. This polymer electrolyte comprises an ionic polymer and a liquid electrolyte, and thereby can be considered to be a charge transfer assisting polymer coating) that coats a liquid electrolyte-solid cathode interfacial surface (see e.g. Gin et al.: [0027], the polymer electrolyte can be a film that coats a cathode surface). Gin et al. further teaches that this charge transfer-assisting polymer coating exhibits high bulk ion conductivity at ambient and sub-ambient temperatures, and retains its ion conductivity longer than traditional Li polymer electrolytes at low temperatures (see e.g. Gin et al. [0025], [0051]). Holoubek et al.’s battery is also intended to be operable at sub-ambient temperatures (see e.g. Holoubek et al.: Abstract).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the instantly-claimed invention to modify the battery of Holoubek et al. by adding the charge transfer-assisting polymer coating taught by Gin et al. to the coat a liquid electrolyte-solid cathode interfacial surface of the nickel metal-oxide cathode of the battery. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification because Gin et al. teaches that such a charge transfer-assisting polymer coating exhibits high bulk ion conductivity at ambient and sub-ambient temperatures and retains its ion conductivity longer than traditional Li polymer electrolytes at low temperatures.
As to claim 7, Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. teaches the battery of claim 6, wherein the charge transfer-assisting polymer coating comprises an ionically conducting polymer (see e.g. ionic polymer, Gin et al.: [0027]).
Claim(s) 8-10, 12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holoubek et al. (Holoubek et al., et al., Supporting Information for ACS Energy Letters 5.5 (2020): 1438-1447) in view of Gin et al. (US 2012/0129045) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Martin et al. (WO 2020/014263).
As to claim 8, Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. teaches the battery claim 7, wherein the charge transfer-assisting polymer coating comprises a lithium ion-conducting polymer (see e.g. Gin et al.: [0026] and [0008], the polymer electrolyte comprises an ionic polymer and is intended for use with a lithium salt system, and thereby is a lithium ion-conducting polymer). Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. teaches that this polymer forms LLC (lyotropic liquid crystal) phases and comprises hydrophobic tail sections and hydrophilic headgroups that define the interfaces of ordered domains enclosing an immiscible liquid (see e.g. Gin et al.: [0034] and [0053]).
Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. does not teach that this polymer is selected from a group consisting of an ammonium-containing polymer, and an imidazolium-containing polymer.
Martin et al. teaches polymers that form LLC phases and conduct ions (see e.g. Martin et al.: [0004]-[0005], teaching that the liquid crystal phase-forming polymerizable surfactants are useful as battery separator materials, which implies they conduct ions) that comprise hydrophobic tail sections and hydrophilic headgroups (see e.g. Martin et al.: [0010] the polymerizable structure shown comprises tail sections X that are hydrophobic due to their aliphatic chains, and headgroups HG that are ionic and therefore hydrophilic). Martin et al.’s ion-conducting polymer is selected from a group consisting of an imidazolium-containing polymer (see e.g. Martin et al.: [0038]-[0039], Scheme 6, and Fig. 1, showing an embodiment with imidazole-derived headgroups that reads on an imidazolium-containing polymer).
Martin et al.’s ion-conducting polymer is made with a simpler process than conventional processes for producing LLC polymers, because it does not require the use of Matteson’s reagent as an intermediate step, which simplifies the synthesis of the polymer (see e.g. Martin et al.: [0007]-[0009]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. by replacing the lithium ion-conducting polymer with the imidazolium-containing lithium ion-conducting polymer taught by Martin et al.. This is because Martin et al.’s polymer forms LLC phases and comprises hydrophobic tail sections and hydrophilic headgroups, and therefore would be a functional equivalent to the ion-conducting polymer of Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al.. Additionally, said artisan would have been motivated to use Martin et al.’s imidazolium-containing lithium ion-conducting polymer because Martin et al. teaches that this polymer can be synthesized via a simplified process that does not require the use of Matteson’s reagent as an intermediate step.
As to claim 9, Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. teaches the battery of claim 8, wherein the charge transfer-assisting polymer coating comprises a lithium ion-conducting polymer that comprises at least one polymer segment formed by the polymerization of a latent polymerizable diene monomer (see e.g. Martin et al.: Scheme 6 and Fig. 1, showing an embodiment of the lithium ion-conducting polymer having a diene-derived segment. See also Illustration 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
180
521
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Illustration 1: Reproduction with annotation of Scheme 6 of Martin et al..
As to claim 10, Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. teaches the battery of claim 9, wherein the latent polymerizable diene monomer comprises the chemical structure R3-R2-R1, wherein R3 is a latent polymerizable diene, R2 is a spacer group and R1 is a cationic headgroup (see e.g. Martin et al.: Scheme 6, Fig. 1, and Illustration 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
184
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Illustration 2: Reproduction with annotation of Scheme 6 of Martin et al..
As to claim 12, Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. teaches the battery of claim 10, wherein R1 comprises an imidazolium functional group (see e.g. Martin et al.: Scheme 6, Fig. 1, and Illustration 2 above, the R1 functional group comprises an imidazolium functional group).that further comprises a counter anion selected from the groups consisting of a bromide, a chloride, an iodide, a PF6-, a Tf2N-, a BF4- and an FSI- (see e.g. Martin et al.: Scheme 6, Fig. 1, and Illustration 2 above, the counter anion is a bromide Br-).
As to claim 14, Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. teaches the battery of claim 10, further comprising the chemical structure R3-R2-R1-L-R1c-R2c-R3c wherein R3 and R3c are each a latent polymerizable diene, R2 and R2c are spacer groups, which may be the same spacer group or different spacer groups, R1 and R1c are each a cationic headgroup, and L is a linker group (see e.g. Martin et al.: Scheme 6 and Illustration 3 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
184
576
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Illustration 3: Reproduction with annotation of Scheme 6 of Martin et al..
As to claim 16, Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. teaches the battery of claim 10, wherein R1 comprises an imidazolium functional group (see e.g. Martin et al.: Scheme 6, Fig. 1, and Illustration 2 above, the R1 functional group comprises an imidazolium functional group).that further comprises a counter anion selected from the groups consisting of a bromide, a chloride, an iodide, a PF6-, a Tf2N-, a BF4- and an FSI- (see e.g. Martin et al.: Scheme 6, Fig. 1, and Illustration 2 above, the counter anion is a bromide Br-).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holoubek et al. (Holoubek et al., et al., Supporting Information for ACS Energy Letters 5.5 (2020): 1438-1447) in view of Gin et al. (US 2012/0129045) and Martin et al. (WO 2020/014263) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Elliott et al. (US 2004/0211939).
As to claim 11, Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. teaches the battery of claim 10. However, in Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al.’s lithium ion-conducting polymer comprises a counter anion selected from the group consisting of a bromide, a chloride, an iodide, a PF6-, a Tf2N-, a BF4- and an FSI- (see e.g. Martin et al.: Scheme 6, Fig. 1, and Illustration 2 above, the counter anion is a bromide Br-). However, Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. teaches that the group R1 that is an imidazolium functional group rather than a cationic ammonium functional group.
Elliott et al., also working in the field of LLC polymers, teaches an analogous lithium ion-conducting polymer having a similar structure with a hydrophobic tail group and a cationic headgroup that comprises an ammonium functional group as one of several possible cationic headgroups (see e.g. Elliott et al.: [0056] and Fig. 1A-1D). Elliott et al.’s ion-conducting polymer forms LLC phases (see e.g. Elliott et al.: [0057]-[0058]), which is the same function performed by the analogous lithium ion-conducting polymer of Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. (see e.g. Gin et al.: [0034] and [0053]).
PNG
media_image4.png
105
586
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Illustration 3: Reproduction of Fig. 1D of Elliott et al..
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. by replacing the lithium ion-conducting polymer comprising a cationic imidazolium functional group with the lithium ion-conducting polymer comprising a cationic ammonium functional group as taught by Elliott et al.. This is because Elliott et al. teaches that a lithium ion-conducting polymer comprising a cationic ammonium functional group is a functional equivalent to the polymer taught by Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al., and such a substitution would produce no new benefit or result that would not have been reasonably expected by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holoubek et al. (Holoubek et al., et al., Supporting Information for ACS Energy Letters 5.5 (2020): 1438-1447) in view of Gin et al. (US 2012/0129045) and Martin et al. (WO 2020/014263) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Yoshimura et al. (US 2024/0279376).
As to claim 13, Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. teaches the battery of claim 12, including an imidazolium functional group (see e.g. Martin et al.: Scheme 6, Fig. 1, and Illustration 2 above, the R1 functional group comprises an imidazolium functional group).
However, Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. does not teach an imidazolium functional group wherein a carbon atom in position 2 of the imidazolium functional group is alkyl substituted with an alkyl pendant moiety selected from the group consisting of a methyl, an ethyl, or a propyl.
Yoshimura et al., working in the field of polymers for electrochemical devices, teaches an analogous polymer comprising an imidazolium head group, a spacer group, and a tail group (see e.g. Yoshimura et al.: Chemical Formula 1 and [0019]). Yoshimura et al. further teaches that alkaline resistance can be imparted to this structure by adding chemically protecting portions to the imidazolium group, including position 2 (see e.g. Yoshimura et al.: [0017], [0045], and [0048]). Specifically, Yoshimura et al. teaches the use of hydrocarbon protecting groups comprising 1-6 carbon atoms, which reads on methyl, ethyl, or propyl alkyl pendant moieties (see e.g. R1-R4, Yoshimura et al.: [0019] and [0045]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. by modifying the imidazolium functional group such that a carbon atom in position 2 of the imidazolium functional group is alkyl substituted with an alkyl pendant moiety selected from the group consisting of a methyl, an ethyl, or a propyl in the manner taught by Yoshimura et al.. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification because Yoshimura et al. teaches that a methyl, an ethyl, or a propyl alkyl pendant moiety placed at position 2 of an imidazolium functional group improves the alkaline resistance of said imidazolium group.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holoubek et al. (Holoubek et al., et al., Supporting Information for ACS Energy Letters 5.5 (2020): 1438-1447) in view of Gin et al. (US 2012/0129045) and Martin et al. (WO 2020/014263) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Elliott et al. (US 2004/0211939).
As to claim 15, Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. teaches the battery of claim 14. However, in Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al.’s lithium ion-conducting polymer comprises a counter anion selected from the group consisting of a bromide, a chloride, an iodide, a PF6-, a Tf2N-, a BF4- and an FSI- (see e.g. Martin et al.: Scheme 6, Fig. 1, and Illustration 2 above, the counter anion is a bromide Br-). However, Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. teaches that the group R1 that is an imidazolium functional group rather than a cationic ammonium functional group.
Elliott et al., also working in the field of LLC polymers, teaches an analogous lithium ion-conducting polymer having a similar structure with a hydrophobic tail group and a cationic headgroup that comprises an ammonium functional group as one of several possible cationic headgroups (see e.g. Elliott et al.: [0056] and Fig. 1A-1D). Elliott et al.’s ion-conducting polymer forms LLC phases (see e.g. Elliott et al.: [0057]-[0058]), which is the same function performed by the analogous lithium ion-conducting polymer of Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. (see e.g. Gin et al.: [0034] and [0053]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. by replacing the lithium ion-conducting polymer comprising a cationic imidazolium functional group with the lithium ion-conducting polymer comprising a cationic ammonium functional group as taught by Elliott et al.. This is because Elliott et al. teaches that a lithium ion-conducting polymer comprising a cationic ammonium functional group is a functional equivalent to the polymer taught by Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al., and such a substitution would produce no new benefit or result that would not have been reasonably expected by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holoubek et al. (Holoubek et al., et al., Supporting Information for ACS Energy Letters 5.5 (2020): 1438-1447) in view of Gin et al. (US 2012/0129045) and Martin et al. (WO 2020/014263) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Yoshimura et al. (US 2024/0279376).
As to claim 17, Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. teaches the battery of claim 16, including an imidazolium functional group (see e.g. Martin et al.: Scheme 6, Fig. 1, and Illustration 2 above, the R1 functional group comprises an imidazolium functional group).
However, Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. does not teach an imidazolium functional group wherein a carbon atom in position 2 of the imidazolium functional group is alkyl substituted with an alkyl pendant moiety selected from the group consisting of a methyl, an ethyl, or a propyl.
Yoshimura et al., working in the field of polymers for electrochemical devices, teaches an analogous polymer comprising an imidazolium head group, a spacer group, and a tail group (see e.g. Yoshimura et al.: Chemical Formula 1 and [0019]). Yoshimura et al. further teaches that alkaline resistance can be imparted to this structure by adding chemically protecting portions to the imidazolium group, including position 2 (see e.g. Yoshimura et al.: [0017], [0045], and [0048]). Specifically, Yoshimura et al. teaches the use of hydrocarbon protecting groups comprising 1-6 carbon atoms, which reads on methyl, ethyl, or propyl alkyl pendant moieties (see e.g. R1-R4, Yoshimura et al.: [0019] and [0045]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. by modifying the imidazolium functional group such that a carbon atom in position 2 of the imidazolium functional group is alkyl substituted with an alkyl pendant moiety selected from the group consisting of a methyl, an ethyl, or a propyl in the manner taught by Yoshimura et al.. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification because Yoshimura et al. teaches that a methyl, an ethyl, or a propyl alkyl pendant moiety placed at position 2 of an imidazolium functional group improves the alkaline resistance of said imidazolium group.
Claim(s) 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holoubek et al. (Holoubek et al., et al., Supporting Information for ACS Energy Letters 5.5 (2020): 1438-1447) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gin et al. (US 2012/0129045).
As to claim 22, Holoubek et al. discloses the battery of claim 1, including a lithium metal anode (see e.g. Li metal anode, Holoubek et al.: pg. 3, para 1), but does not disclose a battery further comprising a charge transfer-assisting polymer coating that coats a liquid electrolyte-solid anode interfacial surface of the lithium metal anode.
Gin et al., also working in the field of low-temperature battery materials, teaches the use of a charge transfer-assisting polymer coating (see e.g. polymer electrolyte, Gin et al.: [0026]-[0027]. This polymer electrolyte comprises an ionic polymer and a liquid electrolyte, and thereby can be considered to be a charge transfer assisting polymer coating) that coats a liquid electrolyte-solid anode interfacial surface (see e.g. Gin et al.: [0027], the polymer electrolyte can be a film that coats a anode surface). Gin et al. further teaches that this charge transfer-assisting polymer coating exhibits high bulk ion conductivity at ambient and sub-ambient temperatures, and retains its ion conductivity longer than traditional Li polymer electrolytes at low temperatures (see e.g. Gin et al. [0025], [0051]). Holoubek et al.’s battery is also intended to be operable at sub-ambient temperatures (see e.g. Holoubek et al.: Abstract).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the instantly-claimed invention to modify the battery of Holoubek et al. by adding the charge transfer-assisting polymer coating taught by Gin et al. to the coat a liquid electrolyte-solid anode interfacial surface of the lithium metal anode of the battery. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification because Gin et al. teaches that such a charge transfer-assisting polymer coating exhibits high bulk ion conductivity at ambient and sub-ambient temperatures and retains its ion conductivity longer than traditional Li polymer electrolytes at low temperatures.
As to claim 23, Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. teaches the battery of claim 6, wherein the charge transfer-assisting polymer coating comprises an ionically conducting polymer (see e.g. ionic polymer, Gin et al.: [0027]).
Claim(s) 24-26, 28, 30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holoubek et al. (Holoubek et al., et al., Supporting Information for ACS Energy Letters 5.5 (2020): 1438-1447) in view of Gin et al. (US 2012/0129045) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Martin et al. (WO 2020/014263).
As to claim 24, Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. teaches the battery of claim 23, wherein the charge transfer-assisting polymer coating comprises a lithium ion-conducting polymer (see e.g. Gin et al.: [0026] and [0008], the polymer electrolyte comprises an ionic polymer and is intended for use with a lithium salt system, and thereby is a lithium ion-conducting polymer). Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. teaches that this polymer forms LLC (lyotropic liquid crystal) phases and comprises hydrophobic tail sections and hydrophilic headgroups that define the interfaces of ordered domains enclosing an immiscible liquid (see e.g. Gin et al.: [0034] and [0053]).
Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. does not teach that this polymer is selected from a group consisting of an ammonium-containing polymer, and an imidazolium-containing polymer.
Martin et al. teaches polymers that form LLC phases and conduct ions (see e.g. Martin et al.: [0004]-[0005], teaching that the liquid crystal phase-forming polymerizable surfactants are useful as battery separator materials, which implies they conduct ions) that comprise hydrophobic tail sections and hydrophilic headgroups (see e.g. Martin et al.: [0010] the polymerizable structure shown comprises tail sections X that are hydrophobic due to their aliphatic chains, and headgroups HG that are ionic and therefore hydrophilic). Martin et al.’s ion-conducting polymer is selected from a group consisting of an imidazolium-containing polymer (see e.g. Martin et al.: [0038]-[0039], Scheme 6, and Fig. 1, showing an embodiment with imidazole-derived headgroups that reads on an imidazolium-containing polymer).
Martin et al.’s ion-conducting polymer is made with a simpler process than conventional processes for producing LLC polymers, because it does not require the use of Matteson’s reagent as an intermediate step, which simplifies the synthesis of the polymer (see e.g. Martin et al.: [0007]-[0009]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. by replacing the lithium ion-conducting polymer with the imidazolium-containing lithium ion-conducting polymer taught by Martin et al.. This is because Martin et al.’s polymer forms LLC phases and comprises hydrophobic tail sections and hydrophilic headgroups, and therefore would be a functional equivalent to the ion-conducting polymer of Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al.. Additionally, said artisan would have been motivated to use Martin et al.’s imidazolium-containing lithium ion-conducting polymer because Martin et al. teaches that this polymer can be synthesized via a simplified process that does not require the use of Matteson’s reagent as an intermediate step.
As to claim 25, Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. teaches the battery of claim 24, wherein the charge transfer-assisting polymer coating comprises a lithium ion-conducting polymer that comprises at least one polymer segment formed by the polymerization of a latent polymerizable diene monomer (see e.g. Martin et al.: Scheme 6 and Fig. 1, showing an embodiment of the lithium ion-conducting polymer having a diene-derived segment. See also Illustration 1 above).
As to claim 26, Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. teaches the battery of claim 25, wherein the latent polymerizable diene monomer comprises the chemical structure R3-R2-R1, wherein R3 is a latent polymerizable diene, R2 is a spacer group and R1 is a cationic headgroup (see e.g. Martin et al.: Scheme 6, Fig. 1, and Illustration 2 above).
As to claim 28, Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. teaches the battery of claim 26, wherein R1 comprises an imidazolium functional group (see e.g. Martin et al.: Scheme 6, Fig. 1, and Illustration 2 above, the R1 functional group comprises an imidazolium functional group).that further comprises a counter anion selected from the groups consisting of a bromide, a chloride, an iodide, a PF6-, a Tf2N-, a BF4- and an FSI- (see e.g. Martin et al.: Scheme 6, Fig. 1, and Illustration 2 above, the counter anion is a bromide Br-).
As to claim 30, Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. teaches the battery of claim 26, further comprising the chemical structure R3-R2-R1-L-R1c-R2c-R3c wherein R3 and R3c are each a latent polymerizable diene, R2 and R2c are spacer groups, which may be the same spacer group or different spacer groups, R1 and R1c are each a cationic headgroup, and L is a linker group (see e.g. Martin et al.: Scheme 6 and Illustration 3 above).
As to claim 32, Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. teaches the battery of claim 30, wherein R1 comprises an imidazolium functional group (see e.g. Martin et al.: Scheme 6, Fig. 1, and Illustration 2 above, the R1 functional group comprises an imidazolium functional group).that further comprises a counter anion selected from the groups consisting of a bromide, a chloride, an iodide, a PF6-, a Tf2N-, a BF4- and an FSI- (see e.g. Martin et al.: Scheme 6, Fig. 1, and Illustration 2 above, the counter anion is a bromide Br-).
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holoubek et al. (Holoubek et al., et al., Supporting Information for ACS Energy Letters 5.5 (2020): 1438-1447) in view of Gin et al. (US 2012/0129045) and Martin et al. (WO 2020/014263) as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Elliott et al. (US 2004/0211939).
As to claim 27, Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. teaches the battery of claim 26. However, in Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al.’s lithium ion-conducting polymer comprises a counter anion selected from the group consisting of a bromide, a chloride, an iodide, a PF6-, a Tf2N-, a BF4- and an FSI- (see e.g. Martin et al.: Scheme 6, Fig. 1, and Illustration 2 above, the counter anion is a bromide Br-). However, Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. teaches that the group R1 that is an imidazolium functional group rather than a cationic ammonium functional group.
Elliott et al., also working in the field of LLC polymers, teaches an analogous lithium ion-conducting polymer having a similar structure with a hydrophobic tail group and a cationic headgroup that comprises an ammonium functional group as one of several possible cationic headgroups (see e.g. Elliott et al.: [0056] and Fig. 1A-1D, and Illustration 3 above). Elliott et al.’s ion-conducting polymer forms LLC phases (see e.g. Elliott et al.: [0057]-[0058]), which is the same function performed by the analogous lithium ion-conducting polymer of Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. (see e.g. Gin et al.: [0034] and [0053]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. by replacing the lithium ion-conducting polymer comprising a cationic imidazolium functional group with the lithium ion-conducting polymer comprising a cationic ammonium functional group as taught by Elliott et al.. This is because Elliott et al. teaches that a lithium ion-conducting polymer comprising a cationic ammonium functional group is a functional equivalent to the polymer taught by Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al., and such a substitution would produce no new benefit or result that would not have been reasonably expected by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holoubek et al. (Holoubek et al., et al., Supporting Information for ACS Energy Letters 5.5 (2020): 1438-1447) in view of Gin et al. (US 2012/0129045) and Martin et al. (WO 2020/014263) as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Yoshimura et al. (US 2024/0279376).
As to claim 29, Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. teaches the battery of claim 28, including an imidazolium functional group (see e.g. Martin et al.: Scheme 6, Fig. 1, and Illustration 2 above, the R1 functional group comprises an imidazolium functional group).
However, Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. does not teach an imidazolium functional group wherein a carbon atom in position 2 of the imidazolium functional group is alkyl substituted with an alkyl pendant moiety selected from the group consisting of a methyl, an ethyl, or a propyl.
Yoshimura et al., working in the field of polymers for electrochemical devices, teaches an analogous polymer comprising an imidazolium head group, a spacer group, and a tail group (see e.g. Yoshimura et al.: Chemical Formula 1 and [0019]). Yoshimura et al. further teaches that alkaline resistance can be imparted to this structure by adding chemically protecting portions to the imidazolium group, including position 2 (see e.g. Yoshimura et al.: [0017], [0045], and [0048]). Specifically, Yoshimura et al. teaches the use of hydrocarbon protecting groups comprising 1-6 carbon atoms, which reads on methyl, ethyl, or propyl alkyl pendant moieties (see e.g. R1-R4, Yoshimura et al.: [0019] and [0045]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. by modifying the imidazolium functional group such that a carbon atom in position 2 of the imidazolium functional group is alkyl substituted with an alkyl pendant moiety selected from the group consisting of a methyl, an ethyl, or a propyl in the manner taught by Yoshimura et al.. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification because Yoshimura et al. teaches that a methyl, an ethyl, or a propyl alkyl pendant moiety placed at position 2 of an imidazolium functional group improves the alkaline resistance of said imidazolium group.
Claim(s) 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holoubek et al. (Holoubek et al., et al., Supporting Information for ACS Energy Letters 5.5 (2020): 1438-1447) in view of Gin et al. (US 2012/0129045) and Martin et al. (WO 2020/014263) as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Elliott et al. (US 2004/0211939).
As to claim 31, Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. teaches the battery of claim 30. However, in Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al.’s lithium ion-conducting polymer comprises a counter anion selected from the group consisting of a bromide, a chloride, an iodide, a PF6-, a Tf2N-, a BF4- and an FSI- (see e.g. Martin et al.: Scheme 6, Fig. 1, and Illustration 2 above, the counter anion is a bromide Br-). However, Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. teaches that the group R1 that is an imidazolium functional group rather than a cationic ammonium functional group.
Elliott et al., also working in the field of LLC polymers, teaches an analogous lithium ion-conducting polymer having a similar structure with a hydrophobic tail group and a cationic headgroup that comprises an ammonium functional group as one of several possible cationic headgroups (see e.g. Elliott et al.: [0056] and Fig. 1A-1D, and Illustration 3 above). Elliott et al.’s ion-conducting polymer forms LLC phases (see e.g. Elliott et al.: [0057]-[0058]), which is the same function performed by the analogous lithium ion-conducting polymer of Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. (see e.g. Gin et al.: [0034] and [0053]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. by replacing the lithium ion-conducting polymer comprising a cationic imidazolium functional group with the lithium ion-conducting polymer comprising a cationic ammonium functional group as taught by Elliott et al.. This is because Elliott et al. teaches that a lithium ion-conducting polymer comprising a cationic ammonium functional group is a functional equivalent to the polymer taught by Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al., and such a substitution would produce no new benefit or result that would not have been reasonably expected by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holoubek et al. (Holoubek et al., et al., Supporting Information for ACS Energy Letters 5.5 (2020): 1438-1447) in view of Gin et al. (US 2012/0129045) and Martin et al. (WO 2020/014263) as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Yoshimura et al. (US 2024/0279376).
As to claim 33, Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. teaches the battery of claim 12, including an imidazolium functional group (see e.g. Martin et al.: Scheme 6, Fig. 1, and Illustration 2 above, the R1 functional group comprises an imidazolium functional group).
However, Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. does not teach an imidazolium functional group wherein a carbon atom in position 2 of the imidazolium functional group is alkyl substituted with an alkyl pendant moiety selected from the group consisting of a methyl, an ethyl, or a propyl.
Yoshimura et al., working in the field of polymers for electrochemical devices, teaches an analogous polymer comprising an imidazolium head group, a spacer group, and a tail group (see e.g. Yoshimura et al.: Chemical Formula 1 and [0019]). Yoshimura et al. further teaches that alkaline resistance can be imparted to this structure by adding chemically protecting portions to the imidazolium group, including position 2 (see e.g. Yoshimura et al.: [0017], [0045], and [0048]). Specifically, Yoshimura et al. teaches the use of hydrocarbon protecting groups comprising 1-6 carbon atoms, which reads on methyl, ethyl, or propyl alkyl pendant moieties (see e.g. R1-R4, Yoshimura et al.: [0019] and [0045]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Holoubek et al. in view of Gin et al. and Martin et al. by modifying the imidazolium functional group such that a carbon atom in position 2 of the imidazolium functional group is alkyl substituted with an alkyl pendant moiety selected from the group consisting of a methyl, an ethyl, or a propyl in the manner taught by Yoshimura et al.. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification because Yoshimura et al. teaches that a methyl, an ethyl, or a propyl alkyl pendant moiety placed at position 2 of an imidazolium functional group improves the alkaline resistance of said imidazolium group.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8, 2-17, and 22-33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of copending Application No. 18/649070 (hereinafter ‘070) in view of Guo et al. (US 2017/0084908).
As to claim 1, ‘070 claims a low temperature-discharging lithium battery comprising:
a separator;
a nickel metal oxide cathode;
a lithium salt;
a first solvent, having a low melting point, which is selected from either methyl propionate or butyl propionate;
and a second solvent having a high electrochemical stability, which is selected from either fluoroethylene carbonate or ethylene carbonate; and,
wherein the first solvent and the second solvent are presentat a volume ratio of (first solvent : second solvent) from (1.0 :0.01)to (1.0: 0.3) (see e.g. lines 2-11 of claim 1 of ‘070).
‘070 claims a silicon-carbon anode, and does not disclose a lithium metal anode.
However Guo et al., also working in the field of battery materials, teaches an anode that may be composed of either silicon-carbon or lithium metal (see e.g. Guo et al.: [0014]). One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would therefore have found it obvious to modify the battery of ‘070 by replacing the silicon-carbon anode with a lithium metal anode, because Guo et al. teaches that these are both functionally equivalent materials, and the use of a lithium metal anode would fail to produce any new benefit that would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claims 2-17, and 22-33, these claims all recite features that are recited by claims 1-17 of ‘070.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT HILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Tong Guo et al. can be reached at (571)-272-3066. 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.
/A.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
