RECHARGEABLE BATTERY WITH ANION CONDUCTING POLYMER
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/13/2023, 3/14/2024, and 7/30/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a binder incorporated with at least one of the anode active material or cathode material, it does not reasonably provide enablement for a type of binder. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. In other words, the claims teach a separate binder material is used in addition to the polymeric material and the composition of this binder material is not disclosed in the specification.
This is a scope of enablement rejection. One of ordinary skill in the art would have to engage in undue experimentation in order to make and use applicants claimed invention. See, In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Circ. 1988); see also, MPEP § 2164.01. MPEP 2164.01(a) sets forth the following factors, summarized from In re Wands, which should be considered when determining whether the claimed invention would require undue experimentation. The factors are as follows:
(A) the breadth of the claims; (B) the nature of the invention; (C) the state of the prior art; (D) the level of one of ordinary skill; (E) the level of predictability in the art; (F) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) the existence of working examples; (H) and the quality of experimentation needed to make and use the invention based on the content of the disclose.
The factors are addressed in order. As to factor A, the claims broadly recite a binder incorporated with at least one of the anode active material or cathode material, wherein this binder could be at least a thousand different possible combinations. No specific examples of the workability of any other binder are given. Therefore, this factor militates against a finding of enablement.
As to factors B and E, the field of material science is an unpredictable art. Thus, the formulation of compounds containing different elements from those that have been optimized experimentally may present different problems. In addition, the formulation of binders requires different chemical formulations. It is not as simple as mixing each component into a beaker. As such one of ordinary skill in the art would not know what problems might arise when formulating a binder using the elements for which applicants have not presented experimental data to support. This factor militates against a finding of enablement.
As to factor C, the closest prior arts of record, US 2016/0111729 discloses a limited number of possible binder materials, not over a thousand different possible combinations. As such, this factor militates against finding of enablement.
As to factor D, the level of ordinary skill in the art would be a person holding a bachelors degree in chemical engineering, material science, or chemistry. This factor does not weigh for or against a finding of enablement.
As to factors F and G, the applicant’s specification provides very broad examples of possible additives. Paragraph 0007 of the published specifications cites the binder may include a polymeric material configured to selectively provide anionic transport across the polymeric material while limiting cationic transport across the polymeric material. However, applicant provides no working examples for any other of the thousands of possible additives claimed. This factor militates against a finding of enablement for the additional elements.
As to factor H, because of the unpredictability of the material science field, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to perform experimentation on each and every combination of the thousands possible. Such a degree of testing is undue experimentation. This factor militates against a finding of enablement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou et al. (US 2012/0189896 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou et al. teach a battery (Abstract; paragraphs 0051-0052;0092-0093) comprising:
a first current collector; a cathode material coupled with the first current collector (Paragraphs 0031; 0062-0063 disclose a cathode comprising a conductive mesh or grid (which would serve as a current collector) being coated with a cathode material.);
a second current collector; an anode material coupled with the second current collector (Paragraphs 0031; 0060-006` disclose an anode comprising a conductive mesh or grid (which would serve as a current collector) being coated with an anode material.); and
a polymeric material coupled between the cathode material and the anode material (Paragraphs 0076; 0092-93 disclose a multilayered separator.), wherein the polymeric material is characterized by a cationic backbone (Paragraph 0083 discloses the multilayered separator can comprise a QA, or quaternary ammonium, polymer such as poly[(2-ethyldimethylammonioethyl methacrylate ethyl sulfate)-co-(1-vinylpyrrolidone)] which contains an ammonium cationic backbone in its structure.) , and wherein the polymeric material is configured to selectively provide anionic transport across the polymeric material while limiting cationic transport across the polymeric material (Paragraph 0083 discloses some multi-layer co-extruded composite separators of the present invention, quaternary ammonium and sulfonic acid groups have been used as substituents on polymer backbones to impart chemical resistance, ion selectivity, or chemical resistance properties to the separator. Another class of substituents useful in separators of the present invention includes phosphorous or phosphorous oxide containing polymers. Many members of these polymers have been shown to possess high ionic conductivity for hydroxide ions and or protons.).
Regarding claim 3, Zhou et al. teach the battery of claim 1, further comprising a separator positioned between the anode material and the cathode material, wherein the polymeric material is coupled with the separator (Paragraph 0086 discloses the separator can comprise multiple layers. The first layer discloses the quaternary ammonium polymeric material and the second layer can comprise a polymer such as PEO, PPO, or PVA.).
Regarding claim 4, Zhou et al. teach the battery of claim 3, wherein the polymeric material is positioned between the separator and the anode material or is positioned between the separator and the cathode material (Paragraph 0076 discloses the separator is adjacent to another element such as an electrode, anode or cathode. Further, paragraph 0086 discloses the separator can comprise two layers, the first comprising the polymeric material and then the second comprises a separator material. The polymeric material with the cationic backbone is clearly between the separator material, the second layer, and the electrode material.).
Regarding claim 5, Zhou et al. teach the battery of claim 1, wherein the anode material comprises a zinc- containing material (Paragraph 0060 discloses the anode can comprise zinc.), and wherein the cathode material comprises a manganese-containing material, a nickel-containing material, or a silver-containing material (Paragraph 0052 discloses the cathode can comprise manganese, nickel, or silver containing materials.).
Regarding claim 6, Zhou et al. teach the battery of claim 1, further comprising a KOH solution as an electrolyte of the battery (Paragraphs 0053-0054 disclose KOH electrolyte.).
Regarding claim 8, Zhou et al. teach the battery of claim 1, wherein the polymeric material is coupled with the first current collector or the second current collector at a lateral region of the polymeric material (Paragraph 0093 discloses the edges of the separator can be selected to an electrode current collector.).
Claims 13, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yonehara et al. (JP 2014-029818 A).
Regarding claim 13, a battery cell (Abstract) comprising:
an anode active material (Paragraph 0024 discloses a negative electrode.);
a cathode active material (Paragraph 0024 discloses a positive electrode.);
a separator positioned between the anode active material and the cathode active material (Paragraph 0024 discloses a gel electrolyte sandwiched between a negative and positive electrode.); and
a binder incorporated with at least one of the anode active material or the cathode active material (Paragraphs 0036; 0044 disclose a polymer is contained in the negative electrode mixture.), wherein the binder includes a polymeric material configured to selectively provide anionic transport across the polymeric material while limiting cationic transport across the polymeric material (Paragraph 0035 discloses the use of a separator/gel electrolyte in between the negative and positive electrodes comprising a polymeric material. Further, the separator material comprises quaternary phosphonium salt polymers or quaternary ammonium salt polymers. Further, abstract and paragraph 0036 discloses the material used for the separator/gel electrode can also be used in the negative electrode mixture which is essentially how a binder is used.).
Regarding claim 14, Yonehara et al. teach the battery cell of claim 13, wherein the polymeric material is further configured to provide transport of hydroxide anions across the polymeric material while limiting transport of metal-containing anionic complexes across the polymeric material (Paragraph 0033).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Yonehara et al. teach the battery cell of claim 13, wherein the binder is further disposed as a coating about at least one of the anode active material or the cathode active material; wherein the binder encapsulates at least one of the anode active material or the cathode active material (Paragraph 0036 discloses the polymer film is formed on the entire or part of the particle surface of the negative electrode active material.).
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 2, 7, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US 2012/0189896 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yonehara et al. (JP 2014-029818 A1)
Regarding claim 2, Zhou et al. teach the battery of claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the polymeric material is further configured to provide transport of hydroxide anions across the polymeric material while limiting transport of metal-containing anionic complexes across the polymeric material.
Yonehara et al. teach a battery cell (Abstract) comprising a cathode (Paragraph 0028) and an anode (Paragraphs 0032 and 0037). Further, a polymeric material is disposed along an exterior surface of the cathode (Paragraph 0035 discloses the use of a separator in between the negative and positive electrodes comprising a polymeric material. Further, the separator material comprises quaternary phosphonium salt polymers or quaternary ammonium salt polymers.). Finally, the polymeric material is further configured to provide transport of hydroxide anions across the polymeric material while limiting transport of metal-containing anionic complexes across the polymeric material (Paragraph 0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhou with Yonehara in order to reduce the dissolution of the anode active material in the electrolyte in addition to passivation thus extending the life of the electrode.
Regarding claim 7, Zhou et al. teach the battery of claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the polymeric material is configured to afford distribution of hydroxide ions across the polymeric material, and is configured to limit distribution of ions characterized by a diameter greater than or about 0.5 nm across the polymeric material.
Yonehara et al. teach a battery cell (Abstract) comprising a cathode (Paragraph 0028) and an anode (Paragraphs 0032 and 0037). Further, a polymeric material is disposed along an exterior surface of the cathode (Paragraph 0035 discloses the use of a separator in between the negative and positive electrodes comprising a polymeric material. Further, the separator material comprises quaternary phosphonium salt polymers or quaternary ammonium salt polymers.). Finally, the polymeric material is further configured to provide afford distribution hydroxide anions across the polymeric material (Paragraph 0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhou with Yonehara in order to reduce the dissolution of the anode active material in the electrolyte in addition to passivation thus extending the life of the electrode.
However, neither Zhou nor Yonehara et al. teach the polymeric material is configured to limit the distribution of ions characterized by a diameter greater than or about 0.5 nm across the polymeric material.
Zhou and Yonehara, however, both teach quaternary ammonium polymers for use in separators for a battery. They are both claiming the same material as disclosed in the specification (See paragraph 0054 of the as-filed specification).
MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims
I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
II. COMPOSITION CLAIMS — IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Regarding claim 9, Zhou et al. teach the battery of claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the polymeric material is characterized by a thickness less than 0.1 mm.
Yonehara et al. teach a battery cell (Abstract) comprising a cathode (Paragraph 0028) and an anode (Paragraphs 0032 and 0037). Further, a polymeric material is disposed along an exterior surface of the cathode (Paragraph 0035 discloses the use of a separator in between the negative and positive electrodes comprising a polymeric material. Further, the separator material comprises quaternary phosphonium salt polymers or quaternary ammonium salt polymers.). Finally, the separator can have a thickness in the range of 1 nm to 5 mm (Paragraph 0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhou with Yonehara in order to reduce the dissolution of the anode active material in the electrolyte in addition to passivation thus extending the life of the electrode.
Regarding claim 12, Zhou et al. teach the battery of claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the polymeric material is functionalized to include hydroxide anions associated with the cationic backbone.
Yonehara et al. teach a battery cell (Abstract) comprising a cathode (Paragraph 0028) and an anode (Paragraphs 0032 and 0037). Further, a polymeric material is disposed along an exterior surface of the cathode (Paragraph 0035 discloses the use of a separator in between the negative and positive electrodes comprising a polymeric material. Further, the separator material comprises quaternary phosphonium salt polymers or quaternary ammonium salt polymers.). Finally, the polymeric material is functionalized to include hydroxide anions associated with the cationic backbone (Paragraph 0035).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US 2012/0189896 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2014/0127542 A1).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Zhou et al. teach the battery of claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the polymeric material is characterized by a diffusion ratio of water relative to metal ions of greater than 1,000 or wherein the polymeric material is characterized by a diffusion ratio of hydroxide relative to metal ions of greater than 10,000.
However, a skilled artisan would be able to adjust the pore size to control the diffusion of various metals in comparison to a hydroxide ion. The diffusion ratio of hydroxide to a metal ion is deemed to be a function of the separator relating to the porosity and pore size, thus a skilled artisan could arbitrarily adjust the pore size/porosity to achieve any ratio that is deemed to be advantageous.
Li et al. teach that the proton over vanadium selectivity was based on the concentrations and the size of the pores as protons would be able to cross the separator more easily compared to the vanadium ions due to the sizes of the ions and thus the porosity of the separator (Paragraph 0039). Li teaches that the size of the ions and the size of the pores influence the diffusion of the ions across the membrane.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the pore size of the separator such that the diffusion ratio of the hydroxide ions to metal ions is within the range given because it has been held by the courts that optimization of a results effective variable is not novel. In re Boesch, 617 F2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonehara et al. (JP 2014-029818 A).
Regarding claim 15, Yonehara et al. teach the battery cell of claim 13. However, they do not teach wherein the binder is incorporated with both the anode active material and the cathode active material.
However, Yonehara et al. disclose incorporation with the negative electrode mixture (Paragraph 0036). While Yonehara et al. may not teach incorporation with the positive electrode mixture, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the incorporation to the cathode material. There is no teaching in Yonehara against this incorporation.
Regarding claim 18, Yonehara et al. teach the battery cell of claim 13, wherein the binder and the at least one of the anode active material or the cathode active material are incorporated in a composite electrode (Paragraph 0036 discloses incorporation with the negative electrode mixture.). However, they do not teach wherein the polymeric material is included within the composite electrode at less than or about 10% of a total volume of the composite electrode.
MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions
II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Regarding claim 19, Yonehara et al. teach the battery cell of claim 13. However, they do not teach wherein the polymeric material is stable at environmental conditions above or about 14 pH.
Yonehara et al. do disclose the electrolyte used can be KOH at 4-8M which gives a pH of 14 (Paragraph 0033).
MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims
I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
II. COMPOSITION CLAIMS — IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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 S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 January 28th, 2026