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 statement (IDS) submitted on 01/05/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 01/05/2024 were reviewed and are acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 01/05/2024 was reviewed and is acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 58 is objected to because of the following informalities: “is at least partially reactive the at least one electrode” in line 2 should be replaced with --is at least partially reactive with the at least one electrode--.
Claim 63 is objected to because of the following informalities: “multifunction” in line 4 should be replaced with --multifunctional--.
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.
Claim(s) 25 and 50 is/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 25 recites the limitation “the electrolyte” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 50 recites the limitation “the cell” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2, 5-6, 10, 12, 16, 38, 43, 47, 49, 63, 67-68, 75, and 104 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duong et al. (US 2011/0123850 A1; hereinafter “Duong”).
Regarding claim 2, Duong discloses a multifunctional structure (separator, Title; see also [0016]) comprising:
a first layer (105) comprising a first polymer (polyolefin, [0124]) and having a first surface and a second surface (as shown in Fig 1),
a second layer (101) comprising an inorganic-based material (zirconium oxide, [0089]) deposited on at least the first surface of the first layer (as shown in Fig 1), wherein the inorganic-based material is electrically insulating (zirconium oxide is inherently and necessarily electrically insulating), and wherein the multifunctional structure is an electrochemical cell separator (Title), and
a third layer (102) comprising an inorganic-based material (zirconium oxide, [0101]) deposited on the second surface of the first layer (as shown in Fig 1).
Regarding claim 5, Duong discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Duong further discloses that the second layer further comprises a second polymer (polyether, [0088]) different from the first polymer (polyethers are different than polyolefins).
Regarding claim 6, Duong discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Duong further discloses that the inorganic-based material is an oxide (zirconium oxide, [0089]).
Regarding claim 10, Duong discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Duong further discloses that the first polymer is a polyolefin (polyolefin, [0124]).
Regarding claim 12, Duong discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Duong further discloses that the third layer is present (as noted above) and wherein the second layer deposited on the first surface of the first layer comprises a composition (polyether, [0088]) that is substantially different from a composition (polyvinyl, [0098]) of the third layer deposited on the second surface of the first layer (polyethers are substantially different than polyvinyls).
Regarding claim 16, Duong discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Duong further discloses that the second layer and third layer comprise a plurality of nanoparticles (zirconium oxide, as noted above; see also [0089] which describes the zirconium oxide powder as having an average particle size between 5 nm to 100 nm).
Regarding claims 38 and 104, Duong discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Duong further discloses an electrochemical cell, and method of forming said electrochemical cell ([0139]) comprising at least one electrode (cathode and anode, [0139]), wherein the at least one electrode is an anode and/or cathode ([0139]); a separator comprising the recited multi-functional structure (as noted above); and an electrolyte ([0139]).
Regarding claim 43, Duong discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Duong further discloses that the anode comprises a metal of lithium (Li, [0145]).
Regarding claim 47, Duong discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Duong further discloses that the cathode is a composite cathode (see [0142-0144] which describes the cathode comprising an active material and a binder, and which reasonably reads on a “composite cathode” because it is comprised of multiple components).
Regarding claim 49, Duong discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Duong further discloses that the cathode comprises LiFePO4 (LiFePO4, [0142]).
Regarding claim 63, Duong discloses a method of making a multifunctional structure (separator, Title/Abstract; see also [0016]) comprising:
depositing an inorganic-based material (titanium oxide, [0069]) on at least a first surface of a first layer (105) comprising a first polymer (polyolefin, [0124]) to form a second layer (101);
wherein the multifunctional structure exhibits an ionic conductivity from about 0.1 mS/cm to about 1 S/cm (see [0020-0021] which describes the separator having an ionic resistance of <10 W/cm2 and a thickness of <30 mm, which corresponds to 0.3 mS/cm, and which falls within the recited range); and
wherein the inorganic-based material is electrically insulating (zirconium oxide is inherently and necessarily electrically insulating).
Regarding claim 67, Duong discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Duong further discloses that the step of depositing is wet and dry chemistry (see [0035] which describes the cascade coating method of depositing the layers wet to avoid or minimize issues during the drying process, and which thus reasonably reads on the recited wet and dry chemistry because wet and dry conditions of the materials are taken into consideration).
Regarding claim 68, Duong discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Duong further discloses that the first layer is provided as a continuous tape (as shown in Fig 4).
Regarding claim 75, Duong discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Duong further discloses that the inorganic-based material is TiO2 (titanium oxide, [0069])
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.
Claim(s) 25, 30, 50, 54, and 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duong et al. (US 2011/0123850 A1; hereinafter “Duong”), as applied to claims 2 or 38 above.
Regarding claim 25, Duong discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Duong further discloses that the separator is hydrophilic ([0079]), but does not explicitly disclose that the separator, i.e. multifunctional structure, exhibits a contact angle from 0° to about 50° when exposed to [an] electrolyte comprising a salt and a non-aqueous solvent.
Duong is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely multifunctional structures.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the hydrophobic separator of Duong would necessarily have contact angle of less than 90°, by definition, and would thus find it obvious to routinely select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges (< 90° significantly overlaps 0° to 50°) because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Furthermore, with respect to the limitation “when exposed to [an] electrolyte comprising a salt and a non-aqueous solvent”, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed article is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed article from a prior art article satisfying the claimed structural limitations (see MPEP 2114(II)). Therefore, while the intended use language of the claim has been considered, it is noted that the prior art separator is capable of performing the functions as claimed because Duong discloses a hydrophobic separator (as noted above), which allows for the prior art to perform the functions as claimed.
Regarding claim 30, Duong discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Duong further discloses that the inorganic-based material may be zirconium oxide, titanium oxide, or aluminum oxide ([0069]).
Duong is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely multifunctional structures.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely utilize titanium oxide or aluminum oxide as the inorganic-based material, as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result, specifically as a metallic oxide filler material, as suggested by Duong.
Furthermore, with respect to the limitation “is at least partially reactive when used in an electrochemical cell, and wherein a reaction product of the inorganic-based material is configured to form a solid-electrolyte interphase (SEI) layer disposed on the second layer and/or third layer” (emphasis added), it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed article is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed article from a prior art article satisfying the claimed structural limitations (see MPEP 2114(II)). Therefore, while the intended use language of the claim has been considered, it is noted that the prior art inorganic-based material is capable of performing the functions as claimed because Duong discloses titanium oxide or aluminum oxide (as noted above), which allows for the prior art to perform the functions as claimed, as evidenced by the Instant Specification (see e.g. [0080] and [0120]).
Regarding claims 50 and 54, Duong discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Duong further discloses that cells comprising the bifunctional separator, i.e. multifunctional structure, exhibited practically negligible capacity loss after more than 125 cycles ([0178] and as shown in Fig 6), but does not explicitly disclose that the [electrochemical] cell exhibits substantially stable plating and striping for at least 200 cycles at certain recited conditions, nor exhibits a capacity greater than about 90 mAh/g after about 100 cycles at a current density of about 50 mAh/g.
Duong is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely multifunctional structures.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the battery of Duong would reasonably exhibit the recited physical characteristics because the separator is substantially similar to the recited invention (as noted above), and because the battery of Duong exhibits practically negligible capacity loss after more than 125 cycles (as noted above), which infers that the battery exhibits stable plating and stripping as well as maintenance of capacity.
Regarding claim 58, Duong discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Duong further discloses that the inorganic-based material may be zirconium oxide, titanium oxide, or aluminum oxide ([0069]), but does not explicitly disclose that the inorganic-based material is at least partially reactive [with] the electrolyte, and wherein a reaction product of the inorganic-based material is configured to form a solid-electrolyte interface (SEI) layer disposed on the second layer or on the third layer.
Duong is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely multifunctional structures.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art routinely utilize titanium oxide or aluminum oxide as the inorganic-based material, as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result, specifically as a metallic oxide filler material, as suggested by Duong.
It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan that the inorganic-based material of Duong would reasonably exhibit the recited functionality due to the substantial similarity of the materials, e.g. titanium oxide or aluminum oxide, and as evidenced by the Instant Specification (see e.g. [0080] and [0120]).
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duong et al. (US 2011/0123850 A1; hereinafter “Duong”), as applied to claim 38 above, in view of Saeki et al. (US 2019/0305278 A1; hereinafter “Saeki”).
Regarding claim 44, Duong discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Duong further discloses that the separator, i.e. multifunctional structure, may provide for dendrite penetration resistance, and that e.g. lithium may form such dendrites ([0136]), but does not appear to be particularly concerned with lithium ion batteries, but rather aqueous zinc-silver oxide batteries ([0032, 0039]), and therefore does not explicitly disclose that the electrolyte comprises a salt and a non-aqueous solvent. It is noted that Duong does disclose that the anode active material may be e.g. Si ([0145]), and that the cathode active material may be e.g. LiFePO4 ([0142]), each of which are well known lithium ion battery active materials.
Saeki teaches inorganic particles for a non-aqueous electrolyte battery (Title). Saeki teaches that inorganic particles for the non-aqueous electrolyte battery should include anion or cation adsorbent materials, e.g. alumina, titanium oxide, or zirconium oxide ([0009] [6-7]). Saeki further teaches that such inorganic particles should be disposed in the separator, and may be disposed in porous layers on either side of a microporous membrane, thereby forming a multilayered structure separator ([0073]). Saeki teaches that an appropriate cathode active material may be LiFePO4 ([0209]), and an appropriate anode active material may be a metal, an alloy, an oxide, or a nitride ([0219]). Saeki teaches that an appropriate electrolyte comprises preferably LiPF6 ([0226]) and an aprotic polar solvent, e.g. ethylene carbonate ([0228]). Saeki teaches that such a non-aqueous electrolyte battery is superior is life characteristics and safety ([0007]).
Duong and Saeki are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely multifunctional structures.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the separator, i.e. multifunctional structure, of Duong in a non-aqueous electrolyte battery, as suggested by Saeki, with the reasonable expectation that doing so would provide substantially similar inorganic particles in a multilayered separator in order to obtain a battery with superior life characteristics and safety, as further suggested by Saeki.
Accordingly, the skilled artisan would find it obvious that modified Duong discloses a salt, specifically lithium hexafluorophosphate (Saeki: LiPF6, [0226]) and a non-aqueous solvent, specifically ethylene carbonate (Saeki: ethylene carbonate, [0228]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 34 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The present invention is related to, inter alia, a multifunctional structure which exhibits an ion transference number of greater than 0.5, wherein the ion transference number is an ion transference number of K, Na, or Li.
Duong et al. (US 2011/0123850 A1; hereinafter “Duong”) is considered to be the closest relevant prior art to dependent claim 34. Duong discloses most of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Duong does not disclose, teach, fairly suggest, nor render obvious the recited ion transference number. At best, Duong discloses that the inventive separator comprising inorganic particles impedes the transport of detrimental ions ([0069]), and thus there does not appear to be any reasonable basis for the skilled artisan to reasonably expect that the separator of Duong would exhibit a high ion transference number.
Zhamu et al. (US 2018/0351196 A1; hereinafter “Zhamu”) is also considered to be relevant prior art to dependent claim 34. Zhamu discloses an alkali metal-sulfur battery (Title). Zhamu discloses Na ion transference numbers for two systems (as shown in Figs 3(A) and 3(B)).
However, Zhamu does not disclose, teach, fairly suggest, nor render obvious the recited ion transference number in relation with the recited multifunctional structure. While Zhamu does disclose a Na ion transference number of 0.5 to 0.7 (as shown in Figs 3(A) and 3(B)), such high ion transference numbers are only achieved in specific systems and at specifically high molar ratios of salts (as shown in Figs 3(A) and 3(B)). Accordingly, there does not appear to be any reasonable basis for the skilled artisan to expect such high ion transference numbers in e.g. the system of Duong because the polymers, salts, electrolytes, etc… are substantially different.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M ERWIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6am-3pm PDT.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 07/24/2026
Prosecution Insights