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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 6-9, and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 6, the claim limitation, “a) an ionic conductive and electronically insulating layer comprising…an inorganic solid material; b) an ionic and electronic conductive layer…”, should read, “a) an ionic conductive and electronically insulating layer comprising…an inorganic solid material; and b) an ionic and electronic conductive layer…” in light of pg. 12, lines 19-20 of the instant specification.
In claim 6, line 2, the claim limitation, “the at least lithium salt” should read, “the at least a lithium salt”.
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.
Claims 1-12 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.
In claim 1, line 8, the claim limitation, “an ion conductive polymer” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether “an ion conductive polymer” is the same as “an ion conductive polymer” claimed in claim 1, line 5, or a separate ion conductive polymer. For the purposes of this office action, “an ion conductive polymer” (line 8) is interpreted to encompass any ion conductive polymer.
In claim 1, line 8, the claim limitation, “at least a lithium or a sodium salt ” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether “at least a lithium or a sodium salt” is the same as “at least a lithium or a sodium salt” claimed in claim 1, line 5, or a separate lithium or sodium salt. For the purposes of this office action, “at least a lithium or a sodium salt” (line 8) is interpreted to encompass any lithium or sodium salt.
In claim 1, line 10, the claim limitation, “an inorganic solid material ” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether “an inorganic solid material” is the same as “an inorganic solid material” claimed in claim 1, line 6, or a separate inorganic solid material. For the purposes of this office action, “an inorganic solid material” (line 10) is interpreted to encompass any inorganic solid material.
In claim 1, line 10, the claim limitation, “an electronically conductive additive” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether “an electronically conductive additive” is the same as “an electronically conductive additive” claimed in claim 1, line 8, or a separate an electronically conductive additive. For the purposes of this office action, “an electronically conductive additive” (line 10) is interpreted to encompass any electronically conductive additive.
Claims 2-12 are similarly rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
In claim 2, lines 2-3, the claim limitation “an ion conductive polymer” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether “an ion conductive polymer” is the same as “an ion conductive polymer” claimed in claim 1, line 5, or a separate ion conductive polymer. For the purposes of this office action, “an ion conductive polymer” (lines 2-3) is interpreted to encompass any ion conductive polymer.
In claim 2, line 3, the claim limitation “at least a lithium salt” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether “at least a lithium salt” is the same as “at least a lithium salt” claimed in claim 1, line 5, or a separate lithium salt. For the purposes of this office action, “at least a lithium salt” (line 3) is interpreted to encompass any lithium salt.
In claim 3, line 2, the claim limitation “an ion conductive polymer” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether “an ion conductive polymer” is the same as “an ion conductive polymer” claimed in claim 1, line 8, or a separate ion conductive polymer. For the purposes of this office action, “an ion conductive polymer” (line 2) is interpreted to encompass any ion conductive polymer.
In claim 3, line 3, the claim limitation “a lithium salt” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether “a lithium salt” is the same as “a lithium salt” claimed in claim 1, line 8, or a different lithium salt. For the purposes of this office action, “a lithium salt” (line 3) is interpreted to encompass any lithium salt.
In claim 3, line 3, the claim limitation “an electronically conductive additive” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether “an electronically conductive additive” is the same as “an electronically conductive additive” claimed in claim 1, line 10, or a different electronically conductive additive. For the purposes of this office action, “an electronically conductive additive” (line 3) is interpreted to encompass any electronically conductive additive.
In claim 8, line 5, the claim limitation "a lithium salt" renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether "a lithium salt" is the same as "a lithium salt" claimed in claim 1, line 5, or a different lithium salt. For the purposes of this office action, "a lithium salt" (line 5) is interpreted to encompass any lithium salt.
In claim 9, line 4, the claim limitation “a lithium salt” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether “a lithium salt” is the same as “a lithium salt” claimed in claim 1, line 8, or a different lithium salt. For the purposes of this office action, “a lithium salt” (line 4) is interpreted to encompass any lithium salt.
In claims 4-5, line 2, the claim limitation “the ion conductive polymer” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether Applicant is referring to the ion conductive polymer in a) the ionic conductive and electronically insulating layer or the ion conductive polymer in b) the ionic and electronic conductive layer or both. For the purposes of this Office Action, “the ion conductive polymer” is interpreted to be directed to either of the ion conductive polymers.
In claim 6, line 2, “the at least lithium salt” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether Applicant is referring to the lithium salt of a) an ionic conductive and electronically insulating layer or the lithium salt of b) an ionic and electronic conductive layer claimed in claim or both. For the purposes of this Office Action, “the at least lithium salt” is interpreted to be directed to the lithium salt of either layer. Examiner notes claim 6 is also subject to an objection.
In claim 7, line 2, “the electronically conductive additive” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether Applicant is referring to “an electronically conductive additive” claimed in claim 1, lines 8-9, or “an electronically conductive additive” claimed in claim 1, line 10. For the purpose of this Office Action, the claim in interpreted to be directed to either electronically conductive additive.
In claim 9, line 6, “an electronically conductive additive” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether Applicant is referring to “an electronically conductive additive” claimed in claim 1, line 8-9, or a different electronically conductive additive. . For the purposes of this office action, “an ion conductive polymer” (line 6) is interpreted to encompass any ion conductive polymer.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the negative electrode" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation is interpreted to read “a negative electrode”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the positive electrode" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation is interpreted to read “a positive electrode”.
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.
Claims 1-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (CN105489815B, cited in IDS filed 04/22/2026).
Regarding claims 1-3, Liu discloses an electrochemical Li-metal battery (i.e. lithium sulfur battery, [0008]) comprising a multilayer solid electrolyte for Li- ion batteries (i.e. interlayer and solid electrolyte membrane, [0018]), said multilayer solid electrolyte comprising:
an ionic conductive and electronically insulating layer (i.e. solid electrolyte membrane, [0022]) comprising:
an ion conductive polymer (i.e. lithium inducing polymer, [0022]), and a lithium salt ([0022]), reading on claims 1 and 2.
an ionic and electronic conductive layer (i.e. interlayer, [0008]) comprising:
an ion conductive polymer (i.e. interlayer comprises solid electrolyte which comprises of lithium inducing polymer, [0008];[0013-0014]), a lithium salt (i.e. interlayer comprises of solid electrolyte which comprises a lithium salt, [0008];[0013]) , and an electronically conductive additive (i.e. conductive material, [0008]), reading on claims 1 and 3.
Regarding claims 4-5, Liu discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Liu further discloses in a preferred embodiment, the lithium inducing polymer (i.e. ion conductive polymer) is polyethylene oxide, polymethyl methacrylate, polyacrylonitrile, polyacrylic acid, polypropylene oxide, polyvinylidene fluoride, polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer, polyethylene ([0014]).
Liu further discloses a specific embodiment wherein the ion conductive polymer used was PEO (polyethylene oxide) (Example 1, [36]), reading on claims 4 and 5.
Regarding claim 6, Liu discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Liu further discloses in a more preferred embodiment the lithium salt is LiN(SO2CF3)2 , LiCF3SO3, LiC(SO2CF3)3 , LiBC2O4F2 , LiC4BO8 , lithium bisoxalate borate (LiBOB), LiOCH(CH3)2 (lithium isopropoxide) and derivatives thereof, [0017]). Liu further discloses embodiments where LiTFSI (lithium bis(trufluoromethanesulfonyul)imide Li[(CF3SO2)2N]) is used as the lithium salt, (Example 1 [0036]), thus satisfying claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Liu discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Liu further discloses wherein the electronically conductive additive (i.e. conductive material, [0009]) is at least one of carbon material, a conductive polymer, and a metal nano particle ([0009]), where the carbon material in a more preferred embodiment is at least one of super P, acetylene black, Ketjen black, carbon nanotubes, graphene, and carbon nanofibers ([0010]). Liu further discloses a specific embodiment where super P (i.e. carbon black) was used as the conductive material, (Example 1, [0036]). Thus, Liu satisfies claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Liu discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Liu further discloses wherein the ionic conductive and electronically insulating layer (a) (i.e. film formation of polymer solid electrolyte, [0038]) comprises polyethylene as an ion conductive polymer (i.e. PEO, [0038], Example 1), and LiN(SO2CF3)2 as the lithium salt (i.e. LiTFSI, [0038], Example 1).
Regarding claim 9, Liu discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Liu further discloses wherein the ionic and electronic conductive layer (i.e. interlayer) comprises polyethylene oxide as the ion conductive polymer (i.e. PEO, [0036]), LiN(SO2CF3)2 (i.e. LiTFSI, [0036]) as the lithium salt, and super P (i.e. carbon black, [0036]) as the electronically conductive additive.
Regarding claim 11, Liu discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Liu discloses an all-solid lithium sulfur battery ([18]) where lithium metal is used as the negative electrode ([18]).
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 1, 10, and 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN112038687A) in view of He et al. (US20190393486A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses an electrochemical Li-ion battery ([6]) comprising a multilayer solid electrolyte for Li-ion batteries (i.e. double-layer composite solid electrolyte membrane, [9]), said multilayer solid electrolyte comprising:
an ionic conductive and electronically insulating layer (i.e. composite electrolyte on the positive electrode side, [20]) comprising an ion conductive polymer (i.e. polyacrylonitrile, [22]), and a lithium salt ([23]).
Zhang further discloses a composite electrolyte on the negative electrode side comprising an ion conductive polymer (i.e. polyethylene oxide, [25];[32]), and a lithium salt ([27]).
Zhang does not disclose wherein the composite electrolyte on the negative electrode side comprises an electronically conductive additive.
He discloses a similar Li-ion battery ([0069]) that comprises a first anode protecting layer which is in physical contact with the anode active material layer ([0014]) that is electron-conducting ([0018]). He further teaches the first anode protecting layer can significantly decrease the exchange current density imposed on the anode active material such that the local exchange current density can be lower than the threshold exchange current density for lithium dendrite initiation and propagation ([0018]).
He further teaches that the first anode-protecting layer comprises a thin layer of electron conducting material selected from graphene sheets, carbon nanotubes, carbon or graphite fibers, expanded graphite flakes, metal nanowires, conductive polymer fibers, or a combination thereof ([0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added electron conducting material in the solid electrolyte layer that is in physical contact with the anode active material layer, thus arriving at an ionic and electronic conductive layer, for the benefits of significantly decreasing the exchange current density imposed on the anode active material and in turn, reducing dendrite propagation and initiation, as taught by He.
Regarding claim 10, modified Zhang discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Zhang discloses wherein the electrochemical battery comprises: the multilayer solid electrolyte, as rendered obvious above. Modified Zhang further discloses wherein the layer a) of the multilayer solid electrolyte, the ionic conductive and electronically insulating layer, is in contact with the positive electrode (i.e. composite electrolyte on positive electrode side, Zhang, [20]). Furthermore, modified Zhang discloses wherein the layer b) of the multilayer solid electrolyte, the ionic and electronic conductive layer, is in contact with the negative electrode (i.e. composite electrolyte on negative electrode side, Zhang, [24]).
While a skilled artisan would recognize that modified Zhang’s disclosed Li-ion battery necessarily possesses a positive and negative electrode, modified Zhang does not explicitly disclose a positive and negative electrode.
Nevertheless, He teaches a similar Li-ion battery comprising a negative electrode (i.e. anode, [0071]) and a positive electrode ([0070]) where the electrolyte is disposed between the positive and negative electrodes ([0070])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have a lithium-ion battery further comprising a positive electrode and negative electrode, as this is a well-known configuration in the art, as taught by He.
Regarding claim 12, modified Zhang discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Zhang further discloses wherein the positive electrode comprises an active material such as metal oxide or metal phosphate, selected from a layered compound LiMO2, spinel compound LiM2O4, olivine compound LiMPO4, silicate compound Li2MSiO4, tavorite compound LiMPO4F, borate compound LiMBO3, or a combination thereof, wherein M is a transition metal or a mixture of multiple transition metals (He, [0040]). Thus, modified Zhang satisfies claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESTHER J TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3479. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:00 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, 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.
/E.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 7/21/2026
Prosecution Insights