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 .
Examiner’s Note
In Claim 4, as well as in Paragraphs [0009], [0021], [0022], and [0025], the lithium salt LiBF4 is described as “lithium borofluoride”. Although this does not match the proper IUPAC name, LiBF4 has been interpreted as “lithium tetrafluoroborate” for purposes of examination. In the interest of clarity, it is recommended to change instances of “lithium borofluoride” in the specification and the claims to “lithium tetrafluoroborate”.
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.
(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) 1, 3-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Jang et al (WO 0199220 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 3-6,
Jang teaches an electrolyte film made of an inorganic absorbent and a polymer binder, and an ion conductive liquid electrolyte (Pg 6, Lines 24-26; claim 1). The inorganic absorbent can be a metal oxide, such as silica (Pg 8, Lines 4-7; claims 1 and 6), the polymer binder can be a polyether (Pg 11, Line 10; claim 1), and the liquid electrolyte may be made up of the lithium salt, lithium tetrafluoroborate (LiBF4) (Pg 16, Line 21; claims 1 and 4), and the organic solvent may be dimethyl carbonate (Pg 16, Line 13; claims 1 and 5). The composition of the solid electrolyte is taught to the following parameters: the electrolyte film consisting of the inorganic absorbent and the polymer binder is 70% to 95% by weight of the inorganic absorbent (Pg 9, Lines 6-8); and the liquid electrolyte comprises 40% to 85% by weight of the total electrolyte (Pg 16, Lines 25-26). Using these ranges, an example can be formulated such that the mass% of the liquid electrolyte and the mass% of the polymer falls between the ranges of 87-93% and 7-13% (claim 1), respectively, given the total content of the liquid electrolyte and the polymer is 100 mass%. The solid electrolyte consists of 30 parts inorganic absorbent (claim 3), 10 parts polymer binder (75% inorganic absorbent in the electrolyte film) and 90 parts of liquid electrolyte (69% liquid electrolyte relative to total electrolyte). This example provides liquid electrolyte at 90 mass% and polymer binder at 10 mass% relative to their combined total.
Regarding Claim 8,
Jang teaches the solid electrolyte according to Claim 1 and a rechargeable cell comprising the solid electrolyte (Pg 17, Lines 4-5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang.
Regarding Claim 7,
Jang teaches the solid electrolyte according to Claim 1, but is silent in regards to the specific surface area of the inorganic absorbent (silica) particles. However, Jang does teach dimensions of a mesoporous molecular sieve made of oxide compounds, such as silica, having a pore diameter of 2-30 nm and a preferred particle size of 50 nm – 20 µm. Furthermore, in Table 1, Jang lists porous silica as the inorganic absorbent in ‘Ex. o’. According to the ACS Material website, the product Mesoporous Silica Molecular Sieve KIT-5 (CAS No. 7631-86-9) has a nanopore diameter of 4.8 nm, a particle size of 2-5 µm, and a specific surface area measured by BET of ~600 m2/g. Additionally, Merck lists a porous silica product (PharmPrepTM P Si100, 10 µm) on their website as having a nanopore diameter of 10 nm. In the Certificate of Analysis for this product (seen below for Batch TA1964381), the particle size is listed as 6-21 µm and a specific surface area measured by BET is listed as 320-400 m2/g. As both of these products have parameters which fit within the ranges taught by Jang, it is reasonable to assume the silica particles used by Jang would have had similar physical properties, including a specific surface area measured by BET to be in a range from 160 - 700 m2/g, even if these measurements are not explicitly taught by Jang.
PNG
media_image1.png
601
725
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Song et al (US 11302961 B1).
Regarding Claim 2,
Jang teaches the solid electrolyte according to claim 1, but does not teach a molar ratio of lithium salt to carbonate solvent within the range of 1:1 to 1:4. However, Song teaches a solid electrolyte comprising a lithium salt (lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide; Col 3, Lines 36-39) and a solvent (dimethyl carbonate; Col 3, Lines 50-54). Song further teaches a weight to volume ratio of lithium salt to the amount of solvent from 0.01 to 2.0 (Col 18, Lines 32-40). Using the molar mass of lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (187.1 g/mol) and converting this to molarity based on the w/v ratio provides a range of 0.053 – 10.7 M. The molarity of a dimethyl carbonate solvent (density = 1.069 g/mL; molar mass = 90.08 g/mol) is approximately 11.9 M. Using these values, Song teaches a ratio of the lithium salt to the dimethyl carbonate solvent as 1:1.11 at the high range and also teaches a ratio of 1:4 when the w/v ratio is approximately 0.55. Song teaches a range of ratios (w/v) between the lithium salt and solvent which significantly overlaps the range of the instant claim; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists and it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratio of lithium salt to solvent as part of routine optimization (see MPEP § 2144.05).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsawa et al (US 5223353 A) in view of Jang.
Regarding Claim 9,
Ohsawa teaches a method of making a solid electrolyte forming composition by mixing a lithium salt, a carbonate solvent, a polyether, and a photopolymerization initiator (Col 16, Lines 35-42), molded inside a beaker type cell and irradiated to form a solid electrolyte (Col 17, Lines 31-35). This solid electrolyte comprises an electrolyte solution : polymer ratio of 5:1 – 8:1 by wt% (Col 8, Lines 10-14). This corresponds to an approximate composition of the solid electrolyte of 84-89% electrolyte solution and 11-16% of the polymer. However, Ohsawa does not teach the presence of a metal oxide as a component of the solid electrolyte. Jang does teach the presence of a metal oxide in the solid electrolyte solution and there is no suggestion the presence of the metal oxide in solution would require significant modification of the method taught by Ohsawa. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of Ohsawa to prepare the solid electrolyte solution taught by Jang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M KNOWLAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571)272-8519. 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.
/KEVIN M KNOWLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights