DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of an apparent irregularity with Figure 13A. Figure 13A includes a plot of Coulombic efficiency data partially obscuring the intended Voltage versus Specific Capacity plot. It appears that the Coulombic efficiency data plot has been unintentionally superimposed on the Voltage versus Specific Capacity plot.
Applicant should review the figure and make the necessary correction.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities.
The word “alkyl” repeatedly appears with the misspelling “alky” (see, paragraphs [0006, 0008, 0110, 0112, 0120, 0128, 0132, 0142, 0149, 0166, 0176, 0183].
Paragraphs [0019] and [0020] refer to “So₃⁻”, instead of “SO₃⁻”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities.
The claim recites the limitation “X is -SO₃⁻, -CO2⁻, -BF₃⁻, -CH₂-(CO⁻)=CH-CO-Y, -SO₂-N⁻-SO₂-Y” on line 8.
The limitation should be edited to read: “X is -SO₃⁻, -CO2⁻, -BF₃⁻, -CH₂-(CO⁻)=CH-CO-Y or -SO₂-N⁻-SO₂-Y”.
The claim recites the limitation “unsubstituted alky” on line 9.
The limitation should be edited to read: “unsubstituted alkyl”.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities.
The claim recites the limitation “R5 and R6 are independent selected from…” on line 5.
The limitation should be edited to read: “R5 and R6 are independently selected from…”
The claim recites the limitation “unsubstituted alky” on line 5.
The limitation should be edited to read: “unsubstituted alkyl”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 13 is 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 13 recites the limitation "the polyfunctional zwitterionic small molecule of Formula 1" on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chem. Eur. J. 21, 6346-6349, hereinafter Yang.
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches a supramolecular organo-ionic electrolyte.
The supramolecular organo-ionic electrolyte comprises β-cyclodextrin as a supramolecular building unit, polyethylene oxide as a coordinating ligand and LiAsF6 or NaAsF6 as an alkali metal salt (abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Yang teaches that the alkali metal salt is either the lithium ion salt LiAsF6 or the sodium ion salt NaAsF6 (abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Yang teaches that the coordinating ligand is polyethylene oxide (abstract) – an ether.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0167394, hereinafter Archer.
Regarding claim 1, Archer teaches an electrolyte comprising the alkali metal salts LiNO3 and LiBOB and the coordinating ligand diglyme. Archer teaches that the reactions between the diglyme and the anion BOB2- produce oligomers, which form a supramolecular assembly (paragraphs [0050, 0051]). Therefore, the electrolyte further comprises oligomers, which are supramolecular building units.
Regarding claim 3, Archer teaches lithium ion salts (paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 4, Archer teaches that LiPF6, LiTFSI and LiFSI, may be used as alternatives to LiNO3 (paragraph [0029]).
Regarding claim 5, Archer teaches diglyme (paragraph [0050]) – an ether.
Regarding claim 6, Archer teaches diglyme (paragraph [0050]). Diglyme satisfies instantly claimed Formula II with R5 and R6 being unsubstituted alkyl and n being 2.
Regarding claim 14, Archer teaches that the electrolyte may include fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) (paragraph [0030]) – a fluoroalkyl carbonate.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0190005, hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a protective layer (23) for a negative electrode (paragraph [0040]).
The protective layer (23) includes an ion-conductive oligomer and a lithium salt (“alkali metal salt”) (paragraphs [0040, 0084]).
The ion-conductive oligomer includes at least two hydrogen-bond forming functional groups that are capable of effecting self-assembly of the protective layer (paragraph [0048]). As such, each hydrogen-bond forming functional group is a “supramolecular building unit”.
The ion-conductive oligomer further comprises an ion-conductive functional group such as an alkylene oxide group (“coordinating ligand”) (paragraph [0053]).
The protective layer (23) is ion-conducting - therefore it is an “electrolyte” (see also paragraph [0170]). It self-assembles due to the hydrogen-bond forming groups (“supramolecular building units”) – therefore it is “supramolecular”. The oligomer is an organic compound and the lithium salt is an ionic compound – therefore the protective layer (23) is a “supramolecular organo-ionic electrolyte”.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Lee teaches the lithium salts LiClO4, LiPF6, LiBF4, LiFSI (LiN(SO2F)2) and LiTFSI (LiN(SO2CF3)2) (paragraph [0085]).
Regarding claims 5, Lee teaches alkylene oxide groups (paragraph [0053]). Alkylene oxide groups include ether bonds.
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches an all-solid-state electrochemical metal cell. The electrochemical metal cell comprises an anode active material (22), a cathode active material (21), a separator (24) and the protective layer (23, “supramolecular organo-ionic electrolyte”) of claim 1 (paragraphs [0136, 0138, 0134, 0170-0172]). The protective layer (23, “supramolecular organo-ionic electrolyte”) is positioned between the anode active material (22) and the cathode active material (21) (figure 3A).
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches that the anode active material is lithium or a lithium alloy (paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 17, Lee teaches that the cathode active material is lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) (paragraph [0163]).
Regarding claim 18, Lee teaches that the separator may be porous, particulate, ceramic or polymeric (paragraphs [0134, 0137, 0138, 0144-0146]).
Regarding claim 19, Lee does not report the capacity retention of the electrochemical metal cell under the claimed conditions. However, given that the cell meets the claimed structural limitations, it is expected to be capable of the claimed performance.
Regarding claim 20, Lee teaches that the electrochemical metal cell is a lithium metal battery (paragraph [0172]). In an example, Lee teaches operating the battery at 25°C (paragraph [0219]).
Claims 1, 3-6 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chem. Mater. 31, 2913-2922, hereinafter Panzer.
Regarding claim 1, Panzer teaches a gel electrolyte composite. The gel electrolyte composite comprises an alkali metal salt, an organic coordinating ligand and a zwitterionic polymer (abstract and figure 1).
Panzer teaches that the zwitterionic polymer contains functional groups capable of cross-linking via physical interactions (Introduction section, p. 2914, left column, 2nd paragraph). These functional groups are thus considered “supramolecular building units”.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Panzer teaches the lithium salt LiTFSI (abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Panzer teaches the organic coordinating ligand tetraglyme (abstract and figure 1). Tetraglyme is an ether.
Regarding claim 6, Panzer teaches tetraglyme (abstract). Tetraglyme satisfies instantly claimed Formula II with R5 and R6 being unsubstituted alkyl and n being 4.
Regarding claim 15, Panzer teaches an all-solid-state electrochemical metal cell. The electrochemical metal cell comprises an anode active material, a cathode active material, a separator and the electrolyte composite (“supramolecular organo-ionic electrolyte”) of claim 1. The electrolyte composite (“supramolecular organo-ionic electrolyte”) is positioned between the anode active material and the cathode active material (Section Electrochemical Cell Testing).
Regarding claim 16, Panzer teaches that the anode active material is graphite (Section Electrochemical Cell Testing).
Regarding claim 17, Panzer teaches that the cathode active material is NMC 532 (Section Electrochemical Cell Testing).
Regarding claim 18, Panzer teaches a Celgard separator (Section Electrochemical Cell Testing). Celgard separators are porous separators comprising a polymeric material.
Regarding claim 19, Panzer does not report the capacity retention of the electrochemical metal cell under the claimed conditions. However, given that the cell meets the claimed structural limitations, it is expected to be capable of the claimed performance.
Regarding claim 20, Panzer teaches that the electrochemical cell is a battery (Introduction Section, last paragraph). Panzer teaches operating the battery at room temperature (Section Electrochemical Cell Testing).
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0328471, hereinafter D’Angelo.
Regarding claim 1, D’Angelo teaches a gel electrolyte composite. The gel electrolyte composite comprises an alkali metal salt, an organic coordinating ligand and a zwitterionic polymer (paragraphs [0025, 0028, 0029]).
D’Angelo teaches that the zwitterionic polymer contains moieties capable of cross-linking via physical interactions (paragraph [0042]). These moieties are thus considered “supramolecular building units”.
Regarding claim 3, D’Angelo teaches lithium salts or sodium salts (paragraphs [0028, 0029]).
Regarding claim 4, D’Angelo teaches the lithium salts LiPF6, LiBF4, LiOTf (lithium trifluoromethanesulfonate) LiFSI (lithium bis(fluorosulfonylimide)) and LiTFSI (lithium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonylimide)) (paragraph [0028]).
D’Angelo further teaches the sodium salts NaPF6, NaBF4, NaOTf (sodium trifluoromethanesulfonate) NaFSI and NaTFSI (paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 5, D’Angelo teaches that the organic coordinating ligand is an ether (paragraphs [0028, 0031]).
Regarding claim 6, D’Angelo teaches tetraglyme (paragraph [0028]). Tetraglyme satisfies instantly claimed Formula II with R5 and R6 being unsubstituted alkyl and n being 4.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chem. Eur. J. 21, 6346-6349, hereinafter Yang as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0190005, hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 4, Yang teaches the alkali metal salts LiAsF6 or NaAsF6 (abstract).
Yang fails to teach one of the enumerated lithium and sodium salts.
The instantly claimed lithium salts are well-known electrolyte ingredients used in the art. See, e.g. Lee who teaches LiAsF6 in addition to LiClO4, LiPF6, LiBF4, LiFSI (LiN(SO2F)2) and LiTFSI (LiN(SO2CF3)2) (paragraph [0085]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select one of LiClO4, LiPF6, LiBF4, LiFSI (LiN(SO2F)2) and LiTFSI (LiN(SO2CF3)2) in place of LiAsF6 in Yang’s electrolyte without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success as these lithium salts are well-known alternates used in the art for the same purpose.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0328471, hereinafter D’Angelo.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, D’Angelo teaches that the zwitterionic polymer comprises a sulfobetaine methacrylate (SBMA) monomer (paragraphs [0037, 0052] and Table 1).
This zwitterionic polymer satisfies the instantly claimed formula with R7 being a C2 alkyl, R8 being a C3 alkyl and X being -SO₃⁻.
The zwitterionic polymer functions as a viscosity modifier.
The purpose of the zwitterionic polymer is to provide physical support and dimensional stability to the electrolyte (paragraph [0043]). D’Angelo also shows that the degree of presence of the SBMA monomer can tune the flexibility of the composite electrolyte (Table 1, paragraphs [0052-0055]).
D’Angelo fails to specify the value z (degree of polymerization of the SBMA monomer).
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine an appropriate degree of polymerization for the SBMA monomer by selecting a desired degree of flexibility of the composite electrolyte. Given that D’Angelo’s electrolyte has the same utility as the instantly claimed electrolyte, it is expected that an optimization for the appropriate flexibility of the material would result in a degree of polymerization within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, D’Angelo teaches that the zwitterionic polymer is poly(sulfobetaine methacrylate) (PSBMA) (paragraph [0052] and Table 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 10-12 are 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 prior art does not teach or suggest a supramolecular organo-ionic electrolyte comprising an alkali metal salt, a coordinating ligand and the polyfunctional zwitterionic small molecule according to Formula 1 as required by claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0115692, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0198015.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/LILIA NEDIALKOVA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights