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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/19/20024 and 1/29/2024 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and a copy with initials is attached herewith.
Drawings
4. The drawings were received on 1/19/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 recites ….”the conformable batter”…. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 17-18 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.
8. Claim 17 recites the limitation "the hydrogel electrode" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required
9. Claim 18 recites the limitation "…the deposition the cathode…" in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claim(s) 1, 15-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(10)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Audebert et al (US 20200280026 A9).
Regarding claim 1, Audebert discloses a conformable battery (improved, flexible micro-batteries and designs for use in biocompatible energization elements have been disclosed) [paragraph 0009], comprising a first polymer substrate having a cathode; a second polymer substrate having an anode facing the cathode (placing the cathode assembly, the electrolyte and the anode within a first and second portion of thermoplastic (polymer) packaging [paragraph 0017, 0023]. Both the anode (110) and cathode (120) electrically communicating exterior of the cell interior (160) and both first and second packaging portions (140) and (150) [Fig. 62; paragraph 0068]); and a hydrogel electrolyte between the cathode (120) and the anode (110) and in contact with the cathode and the anode (The cathode 120 and the anode 110 ionically communicate via an electrolyte 180 which is positioned such that both the anode and cathode may ionically communicate with the electrolyte material [paragraph 0067]. The electrolyte with agar was stirred on the hotplate until the agar dissolved, then de-ionized water was added to replace the water which had evaporated. The mixture was then stirred and allowed to cool to room temperature, forming a soft, cloudy gel [paragraph 0097]. Note that the electrolyte is a hydrogel electrolyte as it comprises a gel in which the liquid component is water herein).
Regarding claim 15, Audebert discloses a method of manufacturing a stretchable battery (improved, flexible (stretchable) micro-batteries and designs for use in biocompatible energization elements have been disclosed, [paragraph 0009]), comprising forming a cathode current collector on a first polymer substrate; depositing a cathode on the cathode current collector; forming an anode current collector on a second polymer substrate; depositing an anode on the anode current collector (a method comprising the steps of forming a cathode having a length and thickness, wherein the ratio of the length to the thickness is equal to or greater than 50:1; attaching the cathode to a cathode collector which extends the length of the cathode to form a cathode assembly; forming an anode having a length and thickness, wherein the ratio of the length to the thickness is equal to or greater than 50:1; distribute an aqueous electrolyte around both the anode and the cathode assembly to enable ionic communication between the cathode and anode; and placing the cathode assembly,
the electrolyte and the anode within a first and second portion of thermoplastic packaging [paragraph 0017, 0023]. The cathode (120) and the cathode current collector (130) are shown positioned and supported on the second packaging portion (150) and at a position opposite the anode (110) within the cell interior (160) [paragraph 0066]. This anode collector tab (190) may be affixed to an end of the anode (110) to be in electric communication with the anode (110) [paragraph 0068]); depositing a hydrogel electrolyte on one of either the cathode or the anode (the cathode (120) and the anode (110) ionically communicate via an electrolyte (180) which is positioned such that both the anode and the cathode may ionically communicate with the electrolyte material, [paragraph 0067]. The electrolyte with agar was stirred on the hotplate until the agar dissolved, then de-ionized water was added to replace the water which had evaporated. The mixture was then stirred and allowed to cool to room temperature, forming a soft, cloudy gel [paragraph 0097]. Note that the electrolyte is a hydrogel electrolyte as it comprises a gel in which the liquid component is water herein); and joining the first polymer substrate and the second polymer substrate to form the battery (The first and second packaging portions (140) and (150) may be both sealed to each other to seal the cell interior (160) from the exterior or the electrochemical battery cell (100), and sealed around the anode collector tab (190) and the cathode current collector (130) which extend exterior the sealed first and second packaging portions (140) and (150) [paragraph 0069]).
Regarding claim 16, Audebert discloses the method of manufacturing as claimed in claim 15, wherein joining the first polymer substrate and the second polymer substrate forms a package for the battery (The first and second packaging portions (140) and (150) may be both sealed to each other to seal the cell interior (160) from the exterior or the electrochemical battery cell (100), and sealed around the anode collector tab (190) and the cathode current collector (130) which extend exterior the sealed first and second packaging portions (140) and (150) [paragraph 0069]).
Regarding claim 20, Audebert discloses the method of manufacturing as claimed in claim 15, comprising a roll-to-roll process (A custom motorized roller setup is used to transform the dough into a freestanding sheet. The material is fed through the rollers a number of times, folding the material back onto itself each time, and the gap between the rolls is reduced until the gap is 0.12 mm. After this, the material is allowed to air-dry [paragraph 0117]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Audebert et al (US 20200280026 A9) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of Zhi et al (US 20210013551 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Audebert discloses the conformable battery as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first polymer substrate and the second polymer substrate comprise thermoplastic and form a package for the battery (placing the cathode assembly, the electrolyte and the anode within a first and second portion of thermoplastic packaging. The first and second portions may envelop all of the electrolyte, a portion of the cathode assembly and a portion of the anode to form a battery interior bounded by sides of the battery interior, except to enable an end portion of the cathode assembly and anode to extend out of the battery interior at both a first and second end of the micro-battery [paragraph 0017, 0023]).
Audebert fails to explicitly disclose the first polymer substrate and the second polymer substrate comprise elastomers. However, Zhi is in the field of a rechargeable battery [paragraph 0036] and teaches the first polymer substrate and the second polymer substrate comprise elastomers (In one example, each of the anode (102) and the cathode (104) may be enclosed by an encapsulation (130) (not shown) [paragraph 0144]. The battery (100') may also include an encapsulating layer (112) located at the outer surface of the battery. The encapsulating layer may be a polymeric layer such as an elastomeric layer encapsulating the battery [paragraph 0153]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the battery of Audebert to include the first polymer substrate and the second polymer substrate comprise elastomers as taught by Zhi in order to encapsulate the battery and maintain integrity and durability of the battery [Zhi: paragraph 0144, 0153].
17. Claim(s) 3 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Audebert et al (US 20200280026 A9) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of Liu et al (US 20190363403 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Audebert fails to explicitly disclose the conformable battery further comprises a polymer spacer between the cathode surface and the anode surface, the polymer spacer having an opening in which the hydrogel electrolyte resides. However, Liu is in the field of a battery [paragraph 0002] and teaches a polymer spacer between the cathode surface and the anode surface, the polymer spacer having an opening in which the hydrogel electrolyte resides (the battery (20) further includes a separator (34) to retain the electrolyte (28) and prevent the battery (20) from short circuit. The separator (34) is sandwiched between the cathode (22) and the adjacent bipolar electrode (24), between the adjacent bipolar electrodes (24) and between the anode (26) and the bipolar electrode (24) [paragraph 0548]. Separator (34) may be selected from a porous membrane, non-woven fabric or glass fiber. Porous membrane includes, but is not limited to one of polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyimide or PE-PP, PP-PE-PP laminate membrane [paragraph 0549]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the battery of Audebert include a polymer spacer between the cathode surface and the anode surface, the polymer spacer having an opening in which the hydrogel electrolyte resides as taught by Liu in order to retain the electrolyte and prevent the battery from short circuit [paragraph 0548].
Regarding claim 17, Audebert discloses the method of manufacturing as claimed in claim 15, further comprising using a sealing around the hydrogel electrolyte and joining the first polymer substrate and the second polymer substrate comprising joining the first polymer substrate to the second polymer substrate with the sealing (In an aspect of the method, the first and second portions of the packaging may be placed within an ultrasonic welder, and the ultrasonic welder may seal the first and second portions of the packaging around the battery interior by sealing the packaging, and cutting the packaging at the seal in one step [paragraph 0023]).
Audebert fails to explicitly disclose a sealing ring. However, Liu teaches a sealing ring (the seal ring may be used as the seal part (36). Preferably the seal ring is in a rectangular shape [paragraph 0550]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Audebert to include a sealing ring as taught by Liu in order to utilize the sealing ring to seal the battery and avoid the leakage of the electrolyte [Liu: paragraph 0549-0550].
18. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Audebert et al (US 20200280026 A9) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of Visco et al (US 20100112454 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Audebert fails to explicitly disclose that the conformable battery is bendable to a radius of curvature of less than 2 mm. However, Visco is in the field of battery cells [paragraph 0026] and teaches that the battery is bendable to a radius of curvature (As shown in FIG. 78, the physical length of each cell in the direction along the row of cells progressively changes, starting from the first cell, which has the longest length, to the last cell, which has the smallest length. Provided that the compliant seal structure components (704, 705) have the appropriate flexural character to allow the structure to bend around the desired radius of curvature [paragraph 0277]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the battery of Audebert to include the battery is bendable to a radius of curvature of less than 2 mm, since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to allow for the battery cell array to be spiral wound and thus to be increased within a volumetric structure having a smaller footprint [Visco: paragraph 0277].
19. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Audebert et al (US 20200280026 A9) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of Choi et al (US 20160204390 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Audebert fails to explicitly disclose that the battery is stretchable to a range of at least 50% to 100%. However, Choi is in the field of a lithium secondary battery [paragraph 0011] and teaches that the battery is stretchable to a range (In order to confirm the electrochemical stability of the lithium ion battery having an extremely deformable structure for an external mechanical stress, a mechanical characteristic test was performed as in FIGS. 14 to 16, paragraph 0114. In the case of the extremely deformable structure according to the present disclosure, more deformation is applied to the junction part connecting the unit displacement bodies than to the unit displacement bodies, and thus, bending (FIG. 14), stretching (FIG. 15), and warping (FIG. 16) tests were performed 3,000 times at a speed of 1 Hz in order to test the stability of the junction part, and the change in open-circuit voltage is shown as a graph [paragraph 0115]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the battery of Audebert to include the battery is stretchable to a range of at least 50% to 100%, since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide the electrochemical stability of the lithium-ion battery having an extremely deformable structure [Choi: paragraph 0114].
20. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Audebert et al (US 20200280026 A9) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of Wright et al (EP 2617093 A2).
Regarding claim 6, Audebert fails to explicitly disclose that the hydrogel electrolyte has an electrochemical stability window of at least 2. 77 V. However, Wright
is in the field of a zinc-metal oxide battery [paragraph 0020] and teaches that the hydrogel electrolyte has an electrochemical stability window of at least 2.77 V (For example, aluminum as a current collector (18) material was tested to have electrochemical stability over-3 to 3V range when in contact with the gel electrolyte of this presentation. Actual batteries using aluminum foil as current collectors have been demonstrated. Similarly, batteries using nickel and stainless-steel foils have also been demonstrated separately as current collectors [paragraph 0065].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the battery of Audebert to include the hydrogel electrolyte has an electrochemical stability window of at least 2.77 Vas taught by The University. The motivation being to obtain a desired electrochemical potential in a battery cell [Wright: paragraph 0056, 0063].
21. Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Audebert et al (US 20200280026 A9) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of Choi et al (US 20160276660 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Audebert fails to explicitly disclose that the anode comprises one of vanadium oxide (V205) or molybdenum sulfide (Mo6S8). However, Choi is in the field of a lithium secondary battery [paragraph 0001] and teaches that the anode comprises one of vanadium oxide (V205) (An example of the anode active material includes a material capable of reversibly intercalating and deintercalating lithium ions, a lithium metal, a lithium metal alloy, a material capable of doping and dedoping lithium, or a transition metal oxide [paragraph 0068]. Examples of the transition metal oxide may include vanadium oxide [paragraph 0092]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the battery of Audebert to include the anode comprises one of vanadium oxide (V205) as taught by Choi in order to provide a lithium secondary battery having high capacity, high efficiency, and excellent rate capability [Choi: paragraph 0014].
Regarding claim 8, Audebert fails to explicitly disclose that the cathode comprises lithium metal oxide (LMO). However, Choi teaches that the cathode comprises lithium metal oxide (LMO) (The cathode active material including the composite coating layer containing Li3PO4 and further containing the lithium metal oxide [paragraph 0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the battery of Audebert to include the cathode comprises lithium metal oxide (LMO) as taught by Choi in order to provide a lithium secondary battery having high capacity, high efficiency, and excellent rate capability [Choi: paragraph 0014].
22. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Audebert et al (US 20200280026 A9) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of Dai et al (US 20160276660 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Audebert fails to explicitly disclose the that the battery is self-healing. Dai is in the field of metal batteries [paragraph 0002] and teaches that the battery is self-healing (a battery cell includes an anode, a cathode, and a self-healing membrane disposed between the anode and the cathode [paragraph 0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Invention to modify the battery of Audebert to include the battery is self-healing as taught by Dai in order to provide the self-healing gel electrolyte membrane that may improve operable lifetime of battery packs implementing the battery cells [Dai: paragraph 0072, 0074].
23. Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urdampilleta González et al (US 20240291031 A1) in view of Zhi et al (US 20190371535 A1)
Regarding claim 10, Urdampilleta González discloses an electrolyte hydrogel for an electrochemical cell includes a self-standing polymer network with a crosslinked, non-ionic polymer and a cationic polymer and a salt in an aqueous solvent and/or dispersant [Abstract; paragraph 0014-0015, 0023, 0040-0048]. Kreb remains silent that the hydrogel is stretchable; however, it is known in the art that the hydrogel electrolyte is highly stretchable and recoverable as taught by Zhi [paragraph 0129, 0152]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, Urdampilleta González teaches that the dual-linked polymer network comprises a polymer network resulting from monomer such as acrylamide [paragraph 0051, 0057, 0157, 0159].
Regarding claim 12, Urdampilleta González teaches that the polymer network results from a crosslinker and a thermal initiator [paragraph 0156-0159, 0218-0219, 0222, 0225].
24. Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urdampilleta González et al (US 20240291031 A1) in view of Zhi et al (US 20190371535 A1) as applied in claim 10 and further in view of Yuan et al (US 20190036147 A1).
Regarding claims 13-14, Urdampilleta González teaches that the aqueous salt solution comprises a zinc salt solution but remains silent about lithium salt solution. However, a hybrid aqueous rechargeable battery wherein acidic electrolyte may be (a) an aqueous solution or hydrogel electrolyte comprising a lithium salt, a sodium salt, a potassium salt, a zinc salt, an aluminum salt, a magnesium salt or a mixture thereof [Abstract; paragraph 0010-0012, 0025, 0027]. And it is within the technical grasp of a skilled artisan to provide optimum concentration of the aqueous salt solution and would have been obvious. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
25. Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Audebert et al (US 20200280026 A9) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of Baker et al (US 20130026409 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Audebert fails to explicitly disclose the method of manufacturing the battery wherein one or more of the depositing the cathode, depositing the anode, and depositing the hydrogel comprise printing. However,
Baker is in the field of a Li-air battery [paragraph 0014] and teaches that one or more of the depositing the cathode, depositing the anode, and depositing the hydrogel comprise printing (cathode and anode electrodes for use in high temperature batteries and capacitors that employ redox active additive composite electrolytes may be screen-printed onto a redox active additive ceramic glass composite. The electrodes may be screen printed such as in the form of organic ink, as a thick film frit or combinations thereof [paragraph 0216]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Audebert to include one or more of the depositing the cathode, depositing the anode, and depositing the hydrogel comprise printing as taught by Baker in order to provide cathode and anode electrodes for use in high temperature batteries [Baker: paragraph 0216].
Regarding claim 19, modified Audebert fails to explicitly disclose that the method of manufacturing the battery, wherein the printing comprises at least one of screen printing, gravure printing, and inkjet printing. However, Baker teaches the printing comprises at least one of screen printing (cathode and anode electrodes for use in high temperature batteries and capacitors that employ redox active additive composite electrolytes may be screen-printed onto a redox active additive ceramic glass composite. The electrodes may be screen printed such as in the form of organic ink, as a thick film frit or combinations thereof [paragraph 0216]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Audebert to include the printing comprises at least one of screen printing as taught by Baker in order to provide cathode and anode electrodes for use in high temperature batteries [Baker: paragraph 0216].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tong Guo 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.
/MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights