DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the dopant is chosen from trimethylphosphate (TMP), triethylphosphate (TEP), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), vinylene carbonate (VC)” includes a drafting error. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as the dopant is chosen from trimethylphosphate (TMP), triethylphosphate (TEP), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), or vinylene carbonate (VC)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
3. Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “steps a) and b)” in lines 1-2 includes a drafting error. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “steps a) and c)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 3, 4, 8, and 9-11 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.
6. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the elastomer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "an elastomer".
7. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the elastomer" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "an elastomer".
8. Claim 8 recites the limitations "said elastomer" in line 2 and “said electrolyte salt” in line 4. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitations have been interpreted as "said crosslinked elastomer" and “said alkali metal salt” as there are antecedent bases.
9. Claim 9 recites the limitations "the elastomer polymer" in line 3 and “the electrolyte salt” in line 6. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitations have been interpreted as “an elastomer polymer" and “the alkali metal salt”.
10. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected as depending from claim 9.
11. Claims 12 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 12 recites the limitation "a polymer electrolyte" in line 1. It is not clear whether it is the same or different solid polymer electrolyte as recited in claim 1 from which it depends. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "a solid polymer electrolyte".
12. Claims 13 and 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 13 recites the limitations “at least two cells”, “each cell” and “other cell(s)”. It is not clear whether it is the same or different electrochemical cells as recited in claim 12 from which it depends. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitations have been interpreted as “at least two electrochemical cells”, “each electrochemical cell” and “other electrochemical cell(s)”.
13. Claim 13 recites the limitation "the stack" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "a stack".
14. Claim 14 is rejected as depending from claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
15. 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.
16. Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xie et al. (CN113583208A) with citations from machine translation provided with this Office Action.
Regarding claim 1, Xie discloses a solid polymer electrolyte (SPE) ([n0006]) comprising an alkali metal salt ([n0006]) and a thermoplastic vulcanizate (TPV) matrix, wherein said TPV comprises a mixture of at least one crosslinked elastomer phase (polyurethane [n0006]) and at least one thermoplastic polymer phase (polycaprolactone [n0006]).
Regarding claim 2, Xie discloses the alkali metal salt is a lithium salt([n0026]-[n0027]).
Regarding claim 5, Xie discloses the thermoplastic polymer is Polycaprolactone (PCL)([n0007]).
Regarding claim 12, Xie discloses an electrochemical cell comprising a solid polymer electrolyte according to claim 1([n0029]-[n0030]).
Regarding claim 13, Xie discloses a module comprising a stack of at least electrochemical two cells according to claim 12, each electrochemical cell being electrically connected with one or more other electrochemical cell(s)(polymer electrolyte has excellent mechanical properties and when applied to batteries, the batteries exhibit excellent electrochemical performance [n0066]).
Regarding claim 14, Xie discloses a battery comprising one or more modules according to claim 13)(polymer electrolyte has excellent mechanical properties and when applied to batteries, the batteries exhibit excellent electrochemical performance [n0066]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
17. 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.
18. Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (CN113583208A) with citations from machine translation provided with this Office Action as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kono et al. (US 2009/0220678).
Regarding claim 3, Xie discloses the elastomer is polyurethane ([n0006]) but does not explicitly disclose an elastomer is chosen from unsaturated or saturated rubber.
Kono teaches positive electrode for use in lithium cell and lithium cell using the same (title). Kono teaches examples of the elastomer usable in the invention include a copolymer of acrylonitrile and butadiene (NBR), a copolymer of acrylonitrile and hydrogenated butadiene (HNBR), a copolymer of styrene ad butadiene (SBR), a copolymer of styrene and acrylonitrile (SAN), a terpolymer of acrylonitrile, butadiene and styrene (ABS), a terpolymer of styrene, acrylonitrile and styrene (SAS), a terpolymer of styrene, isoprene and styrene (SIS), a terpolymer of styrene, butadiene and styrene (SBS), a terpolymer of ethylene, propylene and diene (EPDM), a styrene/ethylene/butene/styrene (SEBS) polymer, a polyurethane elastomer([0032]. Kono teaches the polymers may have a cross-linked structure([0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the elastomer of Xie with an elastomer is chosen from unsaturated or saturated rubber as taught by Kono as art recognized equivalence for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06 (II).
Regarding claim 4, Xie discloses the elastomer is polyurethane ([n0006]) but does not explicitly disclose an elastomer is hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubber (HNBR).
Kono teaches positive electrode for use in lithium cell and lithium cell using the same (title). Kono teaches examples of the elastomer usable in the invention include a copolymer of acrylonitrile and butadiene (NBR), a copolymer of acrylonitrile and hydrogenated butadiene (HNBR), a copolymer of styrene ad butadiene (SBR), a copolymer of styrene and acrylonitrile (SAN), a terpolymer of acrylonitrile, butadiene and styrene (ABS), a terpolymer of styrene, acrylonitrile and styrene (SAS), a terpolymer of styrene, isoprene and styrene (SIS), a terpolymer of styrene, butadiene and styrene (SBS), a terpolymer of ethylene, propylene and diene (EPDM), a styrene/ethylene/butene/styrene (SEBS) polymer, a polyurethane elastomer([0032]. Kono teaches the polymers may have a cross-linked structure([0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the elastomer of Xie with an elastomer is hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubber (HNBR) as taught by Kono as art recognized equivalence for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06 (II).
19. Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (CN113583208A) with citations from machine translation provided with this Office Action as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johnson et al. (US 2023/0096123).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Xie does not explicitly disclose the TPV further comprises a dopant (claim 6) and the dopant is chosen from trimethylphosphate (TMP), triethylphosphate (TEP), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), vinylene carbonate (VC) (claim 7).
Johnson teaches cross-linked solid-polymer electrolytes, methods of making same, and uses thereof (title). Johnson teaches a solid-polymer electrolyte has one or more desirable mechanical propert(ies) (such as, for example, modulus, which may be a storage modulus), low Tg, ionic conductivity (e.g., as a solid-state electrolyte containing a metal salt (such as, for example, LiTFSI) or a gel electrolyte containing a metal salt and liquid electrolyte (such as, for example, LiTFSI and EC/DMC (1:1, v:v)), or a combination thereof([0052]). Johnson teaches a solid-polymer electrolyte where the solid-polymer electrolyte further comprises a liquid electrolyte and, optionally, a metal salt([0088]). Johnson teaches the liquid electrolyte comprises one or more liquid(s) chosen from carbonates (such as, for example, ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), fluorinated ethylene carbonates (e.g., fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), vinylene carbonate (VC) ([0089]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the solid polymer electrolyte of Xie with the TPV further comprises a dopant and the dopant is chosen from fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), or vinylene carbonate (VC) as taught by Johnson in order to provide ionic conductivity.
20. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (CN113583208A) with citations from machine translation provided with this Office Action as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Xie discloses the polyurethane backbone is composed of alternating soft and hard segments, the hard segments contribute to the rigidity and strength of the elastomer, while the soft segments provide the toughness and elasticity of the elastomer ([n0035]). Xie discloses the design of specific soft and hard segment structures and lengths by optimizing and controlling the types and ratios of raw materials for polyurethane and polycaprolactone soft segments, thereby ensuring mechanical and electrochemical properties ([n0035]) but does not explicitly disclose comprising: 20 to 70% (weight) of said crosslinked elastomer; 10 to 70% (weight) of said thermoplastic polymer; 15 to 45% (weight) of said alkali metal salt; 0 to 70% (weight) of dopant; and 0 to 20% (weight) of additives.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the solid polymer electrolyte of Xie with comprising: 20 to 70% (weight) of said crosslinked elastomer; 10 to 70% (weight) of said thermoplastic polymer; 15 to 45% (weight) of said alkali metal salt; 0 to 70% (weight) of dopant; and 0 to 20% (weight) of additives in order to balance mechanical and electrochemical properties, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.05 (II-A).
Allowable Subject Matter
21. Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. And the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this office action on claim 9 is overcome.
In particular, the allowable limitation is a process for preparing the SPE according to claim 1 comprising the steps of: a) Mixing an elastomer polymer with a crosslinking agent at a temperature T1 where T1 is comprised between the melting temperature of the elastomer polymer and the activation temperature of the crosslinking agent; b) Adding the alkali metal salt and the thermoplastic polymer to the mixture obtained in step a); c) Mixing the resulting mixture of step b) at a temperature T2 where T2 is higher than the activation temperature of the crosslinking agent.
Xie discloses a process for preparing the SPE according to claim 1 ([n0010]-n0028]) but does not disclose, teach or render obvious comprising the steps of: a) Mixing an elastomer polymer with a crosslinking agent at a temperature T1 where T1 is comprised between the melting temperature of the elastomer polymer and the activation temperature of the crosslinking agent; b) Adding the alkali metal salt and the thermoplastic polymer to the mixture obtained in step a); c) Mixing the resulting mixture of step b) at a temperature T2 where T2 is higher than the activation temperature of the crosslinking agent.
22. Claims 10 & 11 are objected to as being dependent upon allowable claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the allowable claim and any intervening claims. And the objection set forth in this office action on claim 11 is overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA HOM LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-0489. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST 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, 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.
/VICTORIA H LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights