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 .
Claim Interpretation
The chemical bis(1,1-difluoroethoxy)ethane or “BDOE” as recited in claim 1 is understood to be 1,2-bis(2,2-difluoroethoxy)ethane which is commonly called “F4DEE”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description: “battery cell 200” (See para. [0025]).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: ”402”, “410”, “412” and “414” (See Fig. 4).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with minor typos or terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of typos or unclear terms used in the specification are:
“In further lithium metal battery has an external operating pressure of” (See para. [0009]). This could be changed to, for example: “In further variations the lithium metal battery has an external operating pressure of”.
“diluentis” (See para. [0028]) which should be changed to “diluent is”.
“liquid electrolyte can act a conductive pathway” (See para. [0032]) which should be changed to “liquid electrolyte can act as a conductive pathway”.
Diffusion coefficients are listed as, for example: “10-7”, “10-9” or “10-10” (See para. [0038]). As best understood, these should be changed to “10-7”, “10-9” or “10-10” or for example: “1 x 10-7”, “1 x 10-9”, “1 x 10-10” as used in para. [0049].
“is rooted in a thermodynamic voltage gradient which disappears not until the incoming lithium atoms reach the lithitml metal anode bulk” (See para. [0039]). As best understood, this could be changed to, for example: “is rooted in a thermodynamic voltage gradient which disappearswhen the incoming lithium atoms reach the lithium metal anode bulk”.
“is pemlitted” (See para. [0046]) which could be changed to “is permitted”.
“that that” (See para. [0048]) which could be changed to “that
“uniform1” (multiple instances) (See para. [0048]).
“knm, vn” (See para. [0050]). It’s unclear what is meant by this term.
“integrating will with” (See para. [0051]) which should be changed to “integrating
“perfornlance” (See para. [0055]) which should be changed to “performance”.
“access of access” (See para. [0057]) which should be changed to “access
“The inability of the diluent to dissolve salt, it is not participating in the inner solvation shell” (See para. [0057]). It’s unclear what is meant to be conveyed by this sentence.
“The power of the diluent to screen reactivity for a bare lithium metal” (See para. [0061]). It’s unclear why this is stated and this sentence may need to be added to the preceding sentence or additional details should be added to specify what is showing the power of the diluent to screen reactivity.
“As depicted in Fig. 7A and the TFEC diluent” (See para. [0062]) and it’s unclear how something is depicted in TFEC diluent.
“resistance of as” (See para. [0063]) which should be changed to “resistance [[of]] as”.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “20-40mol%” which should be changed to “20-40 mol%” (space added, see claim 6).
Claim 19 recites “a cross linked polymer backbone” which should be changed to “[[a]] the crosslinked polymer backbone” to clarify it is the backbone recited in claim 15.
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 1-20 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 1 recites “the liquid electrolyte” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This should be changed to “a liquid electrolyte”.
Claim 2 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “the electrolyte fluid” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This should be changed to “the liquid electrolyte” per claim 1.
Claims 4-7 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “the electrolyte fluid” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This should be changed to “the liquid electrolyte” per claim 1.
Claims 9-12 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the anode cap layer is selected from Sn, Cu, and a combination thereof” and it is unclear what is meant by this limitation. It is unclear if the cap consists of Sn, Cu, or a combination thereof or comprises Sn, Cu, or a combination thereof. This could be amended as “wherein the anode cap layer [[is]] includes one or more metals selected from Sn, Cu, and a combination thereof” (See specification pars. [0007] and [0037]-[0038]).
Claim 14 recites “the anode cap layer” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. An anode cap layer is introduced in claim 12 which is not in the dependency chain of claim 14.
Claims 15-18 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 19 recites “the one or more lithium salt” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 19 depends on claim 15 and claim 15 recites “a lithium salt”.
Claim 19 recites “a ratio of the one or more lithium salt to a total of a cross linked polymer backbone, the polyethylene glycol, and the polycaprolactone is less than 0.4:1.0” and it is unclear what is meant by the limitation. It is unclear if the limitation is a weight ratio between lithium salt and the total amount of listed components, a molar ratio between lithium salt(s) and the total moles of the listed components, or some other ratio.
Claim 20 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu et al. (US 20190051905) in view of Cui et al. (US 20250105357).
Regarding claim 1, Zhamu et al. discloses a battery cell (para. [0063], Fig. 2) as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
423
485
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zhamu et al. discloses the battery cell comprises: a cathode comprising a cathode active material disposed on a cathode current collector (Fig. 2, shown above); an anode comprising an anode active material disposed on an anode current collector (Fig. 2, shown above), the anode oriented towards the cathode such that the anode active material faces the cathode active material (Fig. 2, shown above); a separator disposed between the cathode active material and the anode active material (porous separator, Fig. 2, shown above); and a liquid electrolyte (para. [0057]); the liquid electrolyte disposed between the cathode and anode (and thus in contact with the separator as indicated in para. [0013]).
Zhamu et al. does not expressly disclose the liquid electrolyte comprises bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl)carbonate (TFEC) diluent and bis(1,1-difluoroethoxy)ethane (BDOE) solvent.
However, Cui et al. discloses a battery cell (Abstract) with a liquid electrolyte (comprising a solvent, para. [0006]) and Cui et al. teaches the electrolyte may comprise bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl)carbonate (TFEC) diluent and bis(1,1-difluoroethoxy)ethane (BDOE) solvent (claim 19, claim 25, shown below, “F4DEE” is BDOE, para. [0286], TFEC, para. [0399]) as shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
265
595
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 modified the teachings of Zhamu et al. wherein the electrolyte comprises bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl)carbonate (TFEC) diluent and bis(1,1-difluoroethoxy)ethane (BDOE) solvent.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use fluorinated carbonates and fluorinated diethoxyethanes such as TFEC and BDOE respectively in order to achieve favorable ion solvation (Cui et al., para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 2, Zhamu et al. does not expressly disclose TFEC or BDOE.
However, Cui et al. who is relied upon to teach TFEC (para. [0399]) and BDOE (para. [0398], Fig. 76a, “Key Examples”, Example 3) further teaches wherein the ratio of wt % TFEC diluent to wt % BDOE solvent is 1:5.0-1:2.0 in that Cui et al. teaches an overlapping range for the ratio of wt % TFEC diluent to wt % BDOE solvent (para. [0400]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Cui et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003) and MPEP 2144.05.
Assuming, arguendo, that the ratio is not disclosed in Cui et al., the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the weight percent ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the battery cell of Zhamu et al. with the electrolyte having the ratio recited in the instant claims, which is now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Regarding claim 3, Zhamu et al. discloses the use of at least LiTFSI (para. [0020]) which is presumably part of the electrolyte in contact with the high-elasticity polymer (para. [0020]), but insomuch as this is not expressly disclosed, Cui et al. further teaches wherein the electrolyte fluid comprises a lithium salt selected from LiTFSI, LiBOB, and others listed (in para. [0401]).
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 modified the teachings of Zhamu et al. wherein the electrolyte fluid comprises a lithium salt selected from LiFSI, LiTFSI, LiBOB, LiPF6, LiBF4, LiClO4, LiSO3CF3, LiN(SO2F)2, LiN(SO2CF3)2, LiBC4O8, Li[PF3(C2CF5)3], LiC(SO2CF3)3, and a combination thereof.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select known salts for use in electrolytes of battery cells.
Regarding claim 4, Zhamu et al. does not expressly disclose LiFSI.
However, Cui et al. further teaches wherein the lithium salt comprises LiFSI (para. [0401]).
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 modified the teachings of Zhamu et al. wherein the lithium salt comprises LiFSI.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select known salts for use in electrolytes of battery cells.
Regarding claim 5, Zhamu et al. does not expressly disclose LiFSI and LiBOB.
However, Cui et al. further teaches wherein the lithium salt comprises LiFSI and LiBOB (“the salt includes one or more of lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI);……. lithium bis(oxalato)borate (LiBOB);”, para. [0401]).
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 modified the teachings of Zhamu et al. wherein the lithium salt comprises LiFSI and LiBOB.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select known salts for use in electrolytes of battery cells.
Regarding claims 6-7, Zhamu et al. does not expressly disclose the TFEC diluent and BDOE solvent.
However, Cui et al. who teaches the TFEC diluent and BDOE solvent further teaches a range which overlaps both ranges: wherein the lithium salt is in an amount of 15-50 mol % of the liquid electrolyte (per claim 6) and wherein the lithium salt is in an amount of 20-40 mol % of the liquid electrolyte (per claim 7). For example: where the solvent consists of LiFSI (m.w.≈188.08 g/mol), TFEC (ρ≈1470 g/L, m.w.≈226.07g/mol) and BDOE (ρ≈1170 g/L, m.w.≈190.14 g/mol) and using a 1:2 weight ratio of TFEC:BDOE (which Cui et al. teaches could be used, para. [0400]) and where the TFEC and BDOE are 70% by weight of the liquid electrolyte (Cui et al., para. [0402]) should result in the lithium salt being in an amount of about 31 mol% of the electrolyte.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Cui et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra and MPEP 2144.05.
Assuming, arguendo, that the mole percentage is not disclosed in Cui et al., the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the mole percent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the battery cell of Zhamu et al. with the electrolyte having the concentration recited in the instant claims, which is now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Regarding claim 8, Zhamu et al. does not expressly disclose the TFEC diluent and BDOE solvent in the liquid electrolyte.
However, Cui et al. who teaches the TFEC diluent and BDOE solvent further teaches wherein the electrolyte fluid comprises an additive selected from (at least one of, para. [0399]) fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), 1,3-propanesultone (PS) and others listed (in para. [0399]) as well as lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate (LiDFOB) (para. [0401]).
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 modified the teachings of Zhamu et al. wherein the electrolyte fluid comprises an additive selected from N-methyl-N-propylpyrrolidinium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate (LiDFOB), pro-1-ene-1,3-sultone (PES), methylene methanedisulfonate (MMDS), propylene carbonate (PC), vinyl ethylene carbonate (VEC), propane sultone (PS), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), succinonitrile (SN), vinyl carbonate (VC), adiponitrile (ADN), ethyleneglycol bis(2-cyanoethyl)ether (EGPN), and a combination thereof.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include known additives in order to optimize for cell performance (Cui et al., para. [0517]).
Regarding claim 10, Zhamu et al. discloses a polymer composite layer (high-elasticity polymer, para. [0021]) disposed between the anode and separator (Fig. 2, shown above for claim 1).
Claims 9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu et al. (US 20190051905) in view of Cui et al. (US 20250105357) as applied to claim 1 or claim 10 above and in further view of Ritchie et al. (US 20220093908).
Regarding claim 9, Zhamu et al. is silent as to pressure, but is presumably operated at atmospheric pressure. Otherwise, Ritchie et al. discloses a battery cell (Abstract) having a polymer lamination layer (layer 108, Fig. 2) similar to a high-elasticity polymer layer disclosed by Zhamu et al. (Fig. 2) and a cap (anode cap 106) which allows for an external operating pressure of 20 psi or less (Abstract, para. [0006]).
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 modified the teachings of Zhamu et al. wherein the battery cell includes structure to allow for an external operating pressure of 20 psi or less.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include structure to allow for no or low applied external operating pressure in order to eliminate structure needed to apply pressure or to allow for high energy density using a lithium metal anode (Ritchie et al., para. [0015]).
Regarding claim 12, Zhamu et al. does not expressly disclose an anode cap layer disposed between the anode and the polymer composite layer.
However, Ritchie et al. discloses a battery cell (Abstract) having a polymer lamination layer (layer 108, Fig. 2) similar to a high-elasticity polymer layer disclosed by Zhamu et al. (Fig. 2) and an anode cap (anode cap 106).
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 modified the teachings of Zhamu et al. wherein the battery cell comprises an anode cap layer disposed between the anode and the polymer composite layer.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use an anode cap layer in order to achieve higher volumetric energy density (Ritchie et al., Abstract, para. [0015]).
Regarding claim 13, Zhamu et al. does not expressly disclose an anode cap layer.
However, Ritchie et al. who is relied upon to teach an anode cap as discussed for claim 12 above, further teaches the anode cap layer is selected from Sn, Cu, and a combination thereof (pars. [0028] and [0029]).
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 modified the teachings of Zhamu et al. wherein the anode cap layer is selected from Sn, Cu, and a combination thereof.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use an anode cap layer selected from Sn, Cu or combinations thereof in order to achieve higher volumetric energy density (Ritchie et al., Abstract, para. [0015]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu et al. (US 20190051905) in view of Cui et al. (US 20250105357) as applied to claim 10 above and in further view of Viner et al. (US 20150349310) or Yoon et al. (US 20210013514) or Xie et al. (US 20250006900).
Regarding claim 11, the above-cited references for claim 10 are silent as to a porosity.
However, Viner et al. discloses a battery cell (Abstract) with a polymer layer (polymer layer 30 b) between the anode (layer 20, para. [0132]) and separator (ion conductive layer 30 a) and Viner et al. teaches wherein the polymer layer has a porosity of less than 10.0% in that the layer may be non-porous (para. [0126]).
Otherwise, Yoon et al. discloses a battery cell (para. [0075]) with a protective layer comprising polymer (para. [0009]) interposed between the negative electrode and the separator (Abstract) and Yoon et al. further teaches wherein the polymer composite layer has a porosity of less than 10.0% in that Yoon et al. teaches an overlapping range (para. [0037]) or Xie et al. discloses an anode polymer coating layer (first coating layer) comprising a polymer (para. [0015]) and Xie et al. further teaches wherein the polymer composite layer has a porosity of less than 10.0% in that Xie et al. teaches an overlapping range (para. [0015]).
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 modified the teachings of Zhamu et al. wherein the polymer composite layer has a porosity of less than 10.0%.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use a layer with a porosity of less than 10.0% for improved mechanical strength while facilitating ion transport (Yoon et al., para. [0017]) or for improved cycling performance (Xie et al., para. [0005]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Yoon et al. or Xie et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra and MPEP 2144.05.
Assuming, arguendo, that the porosity is not disclosed in Yoon et al. or Xie et al., the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the porosity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the battery cell of Zhamu et al. with the electrolyte having the concentration recited in the instant claims, which is now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu et al. (US 20190051905) in view of Cui et al. (US 20250105357) as applied to claim 10 above and in further view of Ritchie et al. (US 20220093908) and Kinoshita et al. (US 20100099029) or Oh et al. (US 20150194654).
Regarding claim 14, Zhamu et al. does not expressly disclose an anode cap layer.
However, Ritchie et al. discloses a battery cell (Abstract) having a polymer layer (layer 108, Fig. 2) similar to a high-elasticity polymer layer disclosed by Zhamu et al. (Fig. 2) and an anode cap (anode cap 106).
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 modified the teachings of Zhamu et al. wherein the battery cell comprises an anode cap layer disposed between the anode and the polymer composite layer.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use an anode cap layer in order to achieve higher volumetric energy density (Ritchie et al., Abstract, para. [0015]).
Presumably the polymer layer of Ritchie et al. also adheres the anode cap layer to the separator, but this is not expressly stated.
However, Kinoshita et al. discloses a battery cell (implicitly disclosed by disclosing a lithium ion secondary battery with electrodes, Abstract) which includes a polymer layer (resin layer 13, Fig. 1, is PVDF, para. [0180]) and Kinoshita et al. discloses the polymer layer also acts as an adhesive (para. [0082]) or Oh et al. discloses a battery cell (Abstract) which includes a polymer layer (polymer layer 314) and Oh et al. discloses the polymer layer also acts as an adhesive (para. [0045]).
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 modified the teachings of Zhamu et al. wherein the polymer composite layer adheres the anode cap layer to the separator.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a polymer layer which acts as an adhesive in order to prevent separation of layers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu et al. (US 20190051905) in view of Cui et al. (US 20250105357) as applied to claim 10 above and in further view of Imholt et al. (attached non-patent literature titled “Grafted polyrotaxanes as highly conductive electrolytes for lithium metal batteries”) or Jang et al. (US 20230387548).
Regarding claim 15, Zhamu et al. discloses wherein the polymer composite layer comprises a crosslinked polymer backbone (para. [0014]), polyethylene glycol (para. [0017]) and a lithium salt (para. [0020]), but is silent as to polycaprolactone.
However, Zhamu et al. discloses the composite polymer layer comprises polyrotaxane (Abstract) and Imholt et al. discloses a battery cell (Graphical Abstract, page 148) and teaches polycaprolactone may be added to polyrotaxane (Abstract) as a flexible side chain with low Tg (Introduction Section, page 149).
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 modified the teachings of Zhamu et al. wherein the polymer composite layer comprises polycaprolactone.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include polycaprolactone to lower Tg and thereby improve flexibility of the polymer composite layer at lower temperature.
Otherwise, Jang et al. discloses a battery cell (para. [0002]) and teaches the use of polycaprolactone and polyethylene glycol (para. [0022]) in a polymer composite separator.
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 modified the teachings of Zhamu et al. wherein the polymer composite layer comprises polycaprolactone.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use polycaprolactone in the polymer composite layer for the same reason Jang et al. teaches its use in a polymer composite separator layer: facilitating the conduction of lithium ions (Jang et al., para. [0022]).
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu et al. (US 20190051905) in view of Cui et al. (US 20250105357), Imholt et al. (attached non-patent literature titled “Grafted polyrotaxanes as highly conductive electrolytes for lithium metal batteries”) or Jang et al. (US 20230387548) as applied to claim 15 above and in further view of Ritchie et al. (US 20220093908), He et al. (US 20190393482) and/or Thompson (US 20250046796).
Regarding claim 16, Zhamu et al. discloses the use of PVDF-HFP (para. [0025]) which would be expected to form crosslinks with lithium, but Zhamu et al. is silent as to a molecular weight.
However, Ritchie et al. discloses a battery cell (Abstract) having a polymer layer (layer 108, Fig. 2) where the polymer layer includes cross-linked PVDF-HFP (para. [0044]) and Ritchie et al. teaches an overlapping range (para. [0034]).
Likewise, He et al. teaches a battery cell (paras. [0003]) and the use of polymer protective layers between the anode and separator where the polymer layer includes PVDF-HFP (pars. [0020], [0034], [0075]) which may be cross-linked (para. [0109]) and He et al. at least teaches one such layer (not expressly stated to comprise PVDF-HFP) has a molecular weight of 480000 g/mol (para. [0136]) and presumably similar weight would be used for other layers and/or Thompson discloses a battery cell (para. [0087]) with an anode having a polymer protective layer (Abstract) which comprises PVDF-HFP (para. [0046]) with a molecular weight of 400,000 g/mol (para. [0078]).
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 modified the teachings of Zhamu et al. wherein the crosslinked polymer backbone has an un-crosslinked molecular weight of between 100,000 g/mol and 2,000,000 g/mol and is selected from the group consisting of PVDF-HFP, PEGDMA, polyDDA, PVB, PUA, PEO, PAN, PMMA, and copolymers thereof.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a known molecular weight of a polymer known to be used in polymer protective layers such as to facilitate ion conduction (He et al., para. [0020]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Ritchie et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra and MPEP 2144.05.
Assuming, arguendo, that the molecular weight is not disclosed in Ritchie et al., He et al. or Thompson, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the polymer molecular weight, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the battery cell of Zhamu et al. with the range recited in the instant claims, which is now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Regarding claim 20, Zhamu et al. discloses the use of PVDF-HFP (para. [0025]) which would be expected to form crosslinks with lithium or otherwise He et al. teaches a battery cell (pars. [0003]) and the use of polymer protective layers between the anode and separator where the polymer layer includes PVDF-HFP (pars. [0020], [0034], [0075]) which may be cross-linked (para. [0109]) and/or Thompson discloses a battery cell (para. [0087]) with an anode having a polymer protective layer (Abstract) which comprises PVDF-HFP (para. [0046]) or Ritchie et al. discloses a battery cell (Abstract) having a polymer layer (layer 108, Fig. 2) where the polymer layer includes cross-linked PVDF-HFP (para. [0044]).
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 modified the teachings of Zhamu et al. wherein the crosslinked polymer backbone is PVDF-HFP.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use polymers in a polymer protective layer which are known to be used in polymer protective layers such as to facilitate ion conduction (He et al., para. [0020]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu et al. (US 20190051905) in view of Cui et al. (US 20250105357), Imholt et al. (attached non-patent literature titled “Grafted polyrotaxanes as highly conductive electrolytes for lithium metal batteries”) or Jang et al. (US 20230387548) as applied to claim 15 above and in further view of Thompson (US 20250046796) and Ishihara (US 20190379049).
Regarding claim 17, Zhamu et al. is silent as to a molecular weight of polyethylene glycol.
However, Ishihara discloses a battery having a polymer protective layer (para. [0032]) comprising polyethylene glycol (para. [0027]) with a molecular weight between 20,000 g/mol and 200,000 g/mol in that Ishihara teaches an overlapping range (para. [0027]).
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 modified the teachings of Zhamu et al. wherein the polyethylene glycol has a molecular weight between 20,000 g/mol and 200,000 g/mol.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select a known molecular weight of polyethylene glycol such as to alter transition temperatures, density or other characteristics to a desired level.
Zhamu et al. is silent as to a weight percentage of the polyethylene glycol in the polymer composite layer.
However, Thompson discloses a battery cell (para. [0087]) with an anode having a polymer protective layer (Abstract) and Thompson teaches using different polymer components in an amount between 1.0 wt % and 20.0 wt % in that Thompson teaches an overlapping range (para. [0048]).
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 modified the teachings of Zhamu et al. wherein the polyethylene glycol has a molecular weight between 20,000 g/mol and 200,000 g/mol and is between 1.0 wt % and 20.0 wt % of the polymer composite layer. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Ishihara or Thompson overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra and MPEP 2144.05.
Assuming, arguendo, that the molecular weight is not disclosed in Ishihara and the weight percent is not disclosed in Thompson, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the molecular weight or the weight percent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the battery cell of Zhamu et al. with the electrolyte having the ratio recited in the instant claims, which is now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu et al. (US 20190051905) in view of Cui et al. (US 20250105357), Imholt et al. (attached non-patent literature titled “Grafted polyrotaxanes as highly conductive electrolytes for lithium metal batteries”) or Jang et al. (US 20230387548) as applied to claim 15 above and in further view of Thompson (US 20250046796) and Collins et al. (US 20210399275).
Regarding claim 18, Zhamu et al. does not disclose polycaprolactone.
However, Imholt et al. who teaches polycaprolactone further teaches the polycaprolactone has a molecular weight between 20,000 g/mol and 200,000 g/mol in that Imholt et al. teaches an overlapping range (Table 1, page 151, “Mw” column) or otherwise Collins et al. discloses a battery cell (para. [0002]) and teaches using polycaprolactone having a molecular weight of 80,000 g/mol (para. [0372]).
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 modified the teachings of Zhamu et al. wherein the polycaprolactone has a molecular weight between 20,000 g/mol and 200,000 g/mol.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select a known molecular weight of polycaprolactone such as to alter transition temperatures, density or other characteristics to a desired level.
The above-cited references are silent as to a weight percent.
However, Thompson discloses a battery cell (para. [0087]) with an anode having a polymer protective layer (Abstract) and Thompson teaches using different polymer components in an amount between 1.0 wt % and 40.0 wt % in that Thompson teaches an overlapping range (para. [0048]).
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 modified the teachings of Zhamu et al. wherein the polycaprolactone has a molecular weight between 20,000 g/mol and 200,000 g/mol and is between 1.0 wt % and 40.0 wt % of the polymer composite layer.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Imholt et al. or Thompson overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra and MPEP 2144.05.
Assuming, arguendo, that the molecular weight is not disclosed in Imholt et al. or Collins et al. and the weight percent is not disclosed in Thompson, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the molecular weight or the weight percent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the battery cell of Zhamu et al. with the electrolyte having the ratio recited in the instant claims, which is now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu et al. (US 20190051905) in view of Cui et al. (US 20250105357), Imholt et al. (attached non-patent literature titled “Grafted polyrotaxanes as highly conductive electrolytes for lithium metal batteries”) or Jang et al. (US 20230387548) as applied to claim 15 above and in further view of Zhamu et al. (US 20180294476) hereinafter “Zhamu II” or Ritchie et al. (US 20220093908).
Regarding claim 19, Zhamu et al. is silent as to a ratio of lithium salt.
However, Zhamu II discloses a battery cell (para. [0002]) with a polymer layer (UHMW protective layer, Fig. 2) and Zhamu II reasonably teaches wherein a ratio of lithium salt to a total of the polymer layer is less than 0.4:1.0 in that Zhamu II teaches an overlapping ratio (up to 40% by weight, para. [0096]) or Ritchie et al. discloses a battery cell (Abstract) having a polymer layer (layer 108, Fig. 2) where the polymer layer includes a lithium salt and Ritchie et al. reasonably teaches an overlapping range (a solution of 3M lithium salt or greater is added to the polymer layer, para. [0005])
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 modified the teachings of Zhamu et al. wherein a ratio of the one or more lithium salt to a total of a cross linked polymer backbone, the polyethylene glycol, and the polycaprolactone is less than 0.4:1.0.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add a known amount of lithium salt to a polymer layer in order to ensure proper function of the battery cell.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Zhamu II or Ritchie et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra and MPEP 2144.05.
Assuming, arguendo, that the ratio is not disclosed in Zhamu II or Ritchie et al., the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the lithium salt ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the battery cell of Zhamu et al. with the range recited in the instant claims, which is now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 and 12-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 10-11 of copending Application No. 18/819284 hereinafter “’284” in view of Ritchie et al. (US 20220093908).
Regarding claims 1-10 and 12-14, the claims of ‘284 claim the subject matter (the electrolyte composition) but do not claim the electrolyte within a battery cell with external pressure of 20 psi or less, a composite layer, or an anode cap with Sn and/or Cu.
However, Ritchie et al. teaches a liquid electrolyte (Abstract) within a battery cell (Abstract) having an anode, cathode and separator (Fig. 1) with external pressure of 20 psi or less (para. [0005]), a composite layer (layer 108), and an anode cap (cap 106) with Sn and/or Cu (para. [0028]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have modified the claimed invention of ‘284 to include a battery cell with external pressure of 20 psi or less, a composite layer, and an anode cap with Sn and/or Cu.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 11 and 15-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 10-11 of copending Application No. 18/819284 hereinafter “’284” in view of Ritchie et al. (US 20220093908) as applied to claim 10 above and in further view of Yoon et al. (US 20210013514) and Jang et al. (US 20230387548).
Regarding claims 11 and 15-20, ‘284 does not claim a polymer composite layer. However, Ritchie et al. further teaches a crosslinked polymer backbone (para. [0034]), polyethylene glycol (para. [0034]) and PVDF-HFP (para. [0034]); Yoon et al. teaches wherein the polymer composite layer may have a porosity of less than 10.0% (para. [0037]); and Jang et al. discloses a battery cell (para. [0002]) and teaches the use of polycaprolactone and polyethylene glycol (para. [0022]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have modified the claimed invention of ‘284 to include a porosity of less than 10%, polycaprolactone, polyethylene glycol and PVDF-HFP.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 10-11 of copending Application No. 18/226813 hereinafter “’’813” in view of Cui et al. (US 20250105357).
Regarding claims 1-20, ‘813 claims the limitations of the claims except that ‘813 does not claim the composition of the electrolyte; However, Cui et al. claims the composition of the electrolyte: TFEC (pars. [0399]-[0400] and [0402]) and BDOE (pars. [0398], [0400], [0402], Fig. 76a, “Key Examples”, Example 3), lithium salts (para. [0401]) and the claimed additives (para. [0399]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have modified the claimed invention of ‘813 to include the claimed composition of the electrolyte.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051 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.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
