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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14, as filed 29 March 2024, are examined herein. No new matter is included.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 1 and 12 are objected to for use of the non-standard notation “A/”, “B/” and “C/”. The use of “/” is typically used within claims and is not a standard notation for limiting each element. Applicant is suggested to use acceptable alphanumeric notations such as “(a)” or symbols such as “-“ or “·”. In Claim 12, the limitation “at least one ion conductor” should recite “the at least one ion conductor” 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.
Claims 10 and 12-14 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 10 includes the limitation “the amount of ion conductor is generally between 5% and 400%.” The metes and bound of the claimed range are indefinite. Claim 10 further includes the limitation “relative to the solid (zeolite crystals + polymeric binder(s))”. It is unclear whether “the solids” are limited to zeolite and polymeric binders or may be more. Applicant may consider amending this limitation to “the amount of total solids including the at least one zeolite crystals and the at least one polymeric binder”
Claim 12 includes the limitation “at least one ion conductor comprising at least one lithium salt, at least one solvent chosen from SN, DOL, DME, F1EC and EG4DME, optionally with at least one ionic liquid.” Regarding this limitation, there are 3 possible claim interpretations:
“a lithium salt or a solvent chosen from the group consisting of SN, DOL, DME, F1EC and EG4DME.”
“a lithium salt and a solvent chosen from the group consisting of SN, DOL, DME, F1EC and EG4DME.”
“a lithium salt, EG4DME, and a solvent chosen from the group consisting of SN, DOL, DME, and F1EC.”
Based on review of the specification at [0066] and [0070], the broadest reasonable interpretation is determined to include “a lithium salt, and a solvent chosen from the group consisting of SN, DOL, DME, F1EC, and EG4DME.” Examiner notes that the claim limitations can be met without the optional “at least one ionic liquid.”
Regarding Claim 13, the preamble of the claim recites “Use of a composition according to claim 1”; however, there are no steps directed to how the composition used in the claim. As such, the particular method being claimed is indefinite because it recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how the use is actually practiced [See MPEP 2173.05(q)].
Claim 14 stands rejected due to dependency on claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the preamble of the claim recites “use of a composition” but fails to recite any steps pertaining as to how the composition is used as a separator, cathode, or anode.
Claims 14 is similarly rejected due to dependency on claim 13.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jang (WO 2000038263 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jang teaches a composition comprising:
(A) crystals of one or more zeolites, ((Table 1 examples 1(i) and 1(j), zeolite, page 30, line 25 to page 32)
(B) at least one polymeric binder, (Table 1 examples 1(i) and 1(j), with PVDF at 20% and 19% (example 1(i), 1.5 grams zeolite, 0.38 g PVDF)) respectively, which falls within the claimed range of 0.5% and 20% by weight relative to the total weight of the crystals of one or more zeolites and the binder.
(C) at least one ion conductor comprising at least one lithium salt, (page 14 para 2 “lithium salt”, Table 1 LiPF6) and at least one solvent (page 14 para 1) tetraglyme (equivalent to EG4DME).
Regarding claims 7 -8, Jang teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Jang further teaches (page 12 para 1 and Table 1 examples 1(i) and 1(j)) the binder is PVDF which is a candidate within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives.
This also renders obvious the limitation of claim 8, the binder is PVDF which is a candidate within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives.
Regarding claim 9, Jang teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Jang further teaches (page 14 para 2, Table 1 examples 1(i) and 1(j) LiPF6) wherein the lithium salt is lithium hexafluorophosphate or lithium tetrafluoroborate, which are candidates within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives.
Regarding claim 13, Jang teaches (as set forth above) the composition according to claim 1, and further teaches the use of a composition as a separator. (FIG. 1 solid electrolyte 1 and page 22 para 2, where solid electrolyte is placed between anode and cathode.)
Regarding claim 14, Jang teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Jang further teaches (page 16 para 2) a film thickness of 10-200 µm, which falls within the claimed range of 5 µm and 500 µm.
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.
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) 2-5 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (WO 2000038263 A1) in view of Xiao (US 20180254531 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Jang teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, however Jang does not teach a specific type of zeolite.
Xiao, teaches (abstract) the use of lithium ion-exchanged zeolite particles in an electrochemical cell, and further teaches ([0019-0021]) that types of zeolite include faujasites (FAU), MFI zeolites, chabazites (CHA), heulandites (HEU), Linde type A (LTA) zeolites, EMT zeolites, beta zeolites (BEA), mordenites (MOR) and mixtures thereof. At [0034] Xiao teaches that zeolites can mitigate battery degradation.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select a zeolite type as taught by Xiao for the zeolite composite material of Jang, because these zeolite types represent one or more of a finite number of types of zeolite known to mitigate battery degradation.
Regarding claim 3, Jang teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, however does not specifically teach the use of zeolite type LSX. Xiao, in the field of teaches the use of lithium ion-exchanged zeolite particles in an electrochemical cell (abstract), teaches at ([0019]) the use of lithiated zeolite exhibiting a Si:Al ratio in the range of 1:1 to 2:1 having a framework type FAU, which is a candidate within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives. (Examiner notes that this is “low silicon” zeolite.) At [0034] Xiao teaches that zeolites can mitigate battery degradation.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select an LSX faujaxite zeolite as taught by Xiao for the zeolite composite material of Jang, because this zeolite type represents one of a finite number of types of zeolite known to mitigate battery degradation.
Regarding claims 4 -5, Jang teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, however Jang does not explicitly teach wherein the zeolite(s) crystals are crystals of one or more zeolites whose counter-cation is chosen from the hydronium ion, organic cations, alkali metal cations, alkaline-earth metal cations, transition metal cations, rare-earth metal cations, and also mixtures of two or more thereof.
Xiao, in the field of teaches the use of lithium ion-exchanged zeolite particles in an electrochemical cell (abstract), and further teaches ([0034]) that lithiated zeolite particles can mitigate battery degradation.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select lithiated zeolite particles as taught by Xiao for the zeolite composite material of Jang, with a reasonable expectation of successfully mitigating battery degradation.
This also renders obvious the limitation of claim 5, wherein the zeolite crystals are crystals of one or more zeolites whose counter-cation is the lithium cation, optionally with the hydronium cation and/or one or more other alkali metal or alkaline-earth metal cations, and mixtures thereof.
Regarding claim 11, Jang teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Jang further teaches (page 14 para 1) wherein the solvent is tetraglyme (equivalent to EG4DME). At (page 14 para 2) Jang teaches that the lithium salt is preferred to have a low lattice energy and a high degree of dissociation, and teaches (Table 1) the use of LiPF6. However Jang does not explicitly teach that the ion conductor comprises LiFSI, LiTFSI, or a mixture of LiFSI and LiTFSI.
Xiao, in the field of (abstract) zeolite particles in the lithium-ion transport path of an electrochemical cell, teaches at [0041] that LiTFSI is a suitable lithium salt used to make the electrolyte.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to replace the LiPF6 of Jang with the LiTFSI of Xiao as a lithium salt for the composition of modified Jang, because Xiao teaches suitability of that salt, and also because LiTFSI represents one of a finite number of solutions to the problem of lithium salt selection.
Regarding claim 12, Jang teaches the composition according to Claim1, comprising:
(A) zeolite(s) (Table 1 examples 1(i) and 1(j) teaching zeolite)
However, Jang does not explicitly teach crystals of FAU-type zeolite.
Xiao, in the field of (abstract) teaches the use of lithium ion-exchanged zeolite particles in an electrochemical cell, and further teaches ([0019-0021]) that types of zeolite include faujasites (FAU), MFI zeolites, chabazites (CHA), heulandites (HEU), Linde type A (LTA) zeolites, EMT zeolites, beta zeolites (BEA), mordenites (MOR) and mixtures thereof. At [0034] Xiao teaches that zeolites can mitigate battery degradation.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select a zeolite as taught by Xiao for the zeolite composite material of Jang, because these zeolite types represent one or more of a finite number of types of zeolite known to mitigate battery degradation.
Returning to Jang, Jang teaches:
(B) at least one fluorinated polymeric binder, (Table 1 examples 1(i) and 1(j), with PVDF at 20% and 19% respectively, which falls within the claimed range of 0.5% and 20% by weight relative to the total weight of the crystals of one or more zeolites and the binder.
(C) at least one ion conductor comprising at least one lithium salt, (page 14 para 2) and at least one solvent (page 14 para 1) tetraglyme (equivalent to EG4DME).
Claim(s) 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (WO 2000038263 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Jang in teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Jang further teaches (page 11) “the particle size of absorbents … preferably not more than 20 µm.” This overlaps the claimed range, (0.02 µm and 20.00 µm).
Regarding claim 10, Jang teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. At page 14 para 3 Jang teaches the liquid electrolyte (equivalent to ion conductor) is added at preferably 40 to 85% by weight of the total amount of electrolytes including the liquid electrolyte. When calculated relative to the solids (zeolite and binder) this creates a range of (66% [66 grams liquid/100 grams solid] to 550% [550 grams liquid/100 grams solid], which overlaps the claimed range of 5% to 400%. At page 7 para 1 Jang contemplates that the absorbing material (e.g. zeolite) provides sites capable of absorbing liquid electrolytes, which facilitates production and reduces cost. At page 11 para 1, the absorbent material increases the ion conductivity.
A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize the amount of ion conductor (liquid electrolyte) in the composition of Jang, in order to balance the production improvement and ion conductivity of the absorbent material (e.g. zeolite) with the ion conductivity of the ion conductor, with a reasonable expectation of selecting a value in the overlapping part of the range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights