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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “… wherein each of said ion-conductive polymer, alkali salt and at least one inorganic filler is independently fed …” should be amended to recite “… wherein each of said ion-conductive polymer, alkali salt and at least one inorganic filler are independently fed …”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “… with different molecular weight as determined by GPC …” should be amended to properly introduce the acronym, GPC, such that the recitation reads “… with different molecular weight as determined by gel permeation chromatography (GPC) ” before continuing to use the acronym throughout the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “… NanAlnSi96-nO192 16H2O …” should be amended such that it recites “… NanAlnSi96-nO192 16H2O ” consistent with the specification as filed at page 19, line 23. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “… in the range of 0,1% to 65 wt% …” should be amended such that it recites “… in the range of 0.1% to 65 wt% …”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “… between 0,1%-50 wt% …” should be amended to recite “… between 0.1%-50 wt% …”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The recitation “wherein said ion-conductive polymer, alkali salt and at least one inorganic filler are not pre-processed before being fed into the extruder” in lines 7-8 of claim 1 lacks a special definition for “not pre-processed” and is therefore being interpreted consistent with the specification as filed, which states:
“… in a particular embodiment, in the solvent-free process of the invention said ion-conductive polymer, alkali salt and inorganic filler are not pre-processed before being fed into the extruder … said pre-processing step is selected from the group consisting of pre-mixing, blending, (co-) dissolution in a solvent, granulation, desagglorameration, bead milling, ball milling, shaker mixing or any combination thereof.” (see page 8, lines 18-26)
The specification as filed further states that:
“the hybrid polymeric membrane components can be subjected to a purification prior to use in the present method, such as vacuum-drying, distillation, recrystallization, sublimation, chromatography, which solely increase the purity of said components. These purification methods are not considered pre-processing steps and therefore they are not excluded in the process of the invention.” (see page 8, lines 27-31)
Accordingly, any membrane components being fed into the extruder as ready-to-use neat
powders, pellets or liquids (see page 8, lines 10-11 of the specification as filed), such as membrane components commercially available and used as received (see page 15, lines23-25 of the specification as filed) and membrane components in ready-to-use neat powders, pellets or liquids which may or may not be subjected to vacuum-drying, distillation, recrystallization, sublimation and/or chromatography are being interpreted to read on the claimed “wherein said ion-conductive polymer, alkali salt and at least one inorganic filler are not pre-processed before being fed into the extruder”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
[AltContent: rect]
Claims 4, 6 and 11-13 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.
Regarding claim 4 and claim 11: the recitation “wherein the ion-conductive polymer is selected from the group consisting of … a blend of at least one of said ion-conductive polymers with polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) … and combinations thereof” is indefinite as it contradicts claim 1, the claim from which claim 4 depends, and the specification as filed.
The specification as filed defines “combinations” and “blends” as a mixture of two or more components, in particular two or more polymers, obtainable by common methods known to the skilled person, such as mechanical blending, solution blending, or melt blending (see page 13, lines 12-16).
Consequently, given claim 1 requires “wherein said ion-conductive polymer, alkali salt and at least one inorganic filler are not pre-processed”, with pre-processing including “pre-mixing, blending, (co-) dissolution in a solvent, granulation, desagglorameration, bead milling, ball milling, shaker mixing or any combination thereof” (see page 8, lines 18-26 of the specification), it is not clear how “wherein the ion-conductive polymer is selected from the group consisting of … a blend of at least one of said ion-conductive polymers with polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) … and combinations thereof” a blend and combinations can be included in the Markush group when there is not pre-processing.
Regarding claim 6 and claim 12: the recitation “wherein the polyethylene oxide is a mixture or blend” is indefinite as it contradicts claim 1, the claim from which claim 6 indirectly depends, and the specification as filed.
The specification as filed defines “combinations” and “blends” as a mixture of two or more components, in particular two or more polymers, obtainable by common methods known to the skilled person, such as mechanical blending, solution blending, or melt blending (see page 13, lines 12-16).
Consequently, given claim 1 requires “wherein said ion-conductive polymer, alkali salt and at least one inorganic filler are not pre-processed”, with pre-processing including “pre-mixing, blending, (co-) dissolution in a solvent, granulation, desagglorameration, bead milling, ball milling, shaker mixing or any combination thereof” (see page 8, lines 18-26 of the specification), it is not clear how “wherein the polyethylene oxide is a mixture or blend” can be required by the claim when there is not pre-processing. Claim 13 is dependent on claim 12 and therefore rejected under this section due to its dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
[AltContent: rect]
Claims 4, 6 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 4 and claim 11: the recitation “wherein the ion-conductive polymer is selected from the group consisting of … a blend of at least one of said ion-conductive polymers with polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) … and combinations thereof” in claim 4 and claim 11 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 requires “wherein said ion-conductive polymer, alkali salt and at least one inorganic filler are not pre-processed”, with pre-processing including “pre-mixing, blending, (co-) dissolution in a solvent, granulation, desagglorameration, bead milling, ball milling, shaker mixing or any combination thereof” (see page 8, lines 18-26 of the specification).
The specification as filed defines “combinations” and “blends” as a mixture of two or more components, in particular two or more polymers, obtainable by common methods known to the skilled person, such as mechanical blending, solution blending, or melt blending (see page 13, lines 12-16); thus, in the event a blend of at least one of said ion-conductive polymers with polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) or combinations thereof are selected from the Markush group of claim 4 and claim 11, the claims now requires pre-processing (i.e., mechanical blending, solution blending, or melt blending) and therefore fail to further limit the subject matter of claim 1, upon which these claims depend, which requires “wherein said ion-conductive polymer, alkali salt and at least one inorganic filler are not pre-processed”.
Regarding claim 6 and claim 12: the recitation “wherein the polyethylene oxide is a mixture or blend” in claim 6 and claim 12 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 requires “wherein said ion-conductive polymer, alkali salt and at least one inorganic filler are not pre-processed”, with pre-processing including “pre-mixing, blending, (co-) dissolution in a solvent, granulation, desagglorameration, bead milling, ball milling, shaker mixing or any combination thereof” (see page 8, lines 18-26 of the specification).
The specification as filed defines “combinations” and “blends” as a mixture of two or more components, in particular two or more polymers, obtainable by common methods known to the skilled person, such as mechanical blending, solution blending, or melt blending (see page 13, lines 12-16); thus, a “mixture or blend” required in claim 6 and claim 12 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1, upon which these claims depend, which requires “wherein said ion-conductive polymer, alkali salt and at least one inorganic filler are not pre-processed”. Claim 13 is rejected under this section due its dependency on claim 12.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
[AltContent: rect]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 1-5, 7-11 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiegmann et al. (“Highly scalable and solvent-free fabrication of a solid polymer electrolyte separator via film casting technology,” Advances in Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, 3, 100065, 2021; made of record in the 02/19/2025 IDS, herein referred to as Wiegmann) in view of Helmers et al. (“Enhancing the Lithium Ion Conductivity of an All Solid-State Electrolyte via Dry and Solvent-Free Scalable Series Production Processes,” Journal of The Electrochemical Society, Vol. 167, February 2020; herein referred to as Helmers) and further in view of Seeba et al. (“Extrusion-based fabrication of electrodes for high-energy Li-ion batteries,” Chemical Engineering Journal, Vol. 420, December 2020; herein referred to as Seeba) and Bilhorn (US 4,976,904; herein referred to as Bilhorn).
As to claim 1: Wiegmann discloses the claimed solvent-free method for producing a hybrid polymeric membrane (Wiegmann at Title), said method comprises:
feeding into an extruder at least: (i) an ion-conductive polymer (i.e., polyethylene oxide
(PEO)), (ii) an alkali salt (i.e., LiTFSI) (Wiegmann at 2. Experimental Section; and 2.2 Extrusion-flat-film-unit; Fig. 2);
extruding the mixture comprising said ion-conductive polymer and alkali salt
in the extruder to obtain an extruded mixture (Wiegmann at 2.1 Reference-process-chain; and 2.2 Extrusion-flat-film-unit; Fig. 2); and
calendaring the extruded mixture resulting from step b) to obtain a film of thickness
between 15-500 µm (Wiegmann at 2.1 Reference-process-chain; and 2.2 Extrusion-flat-film-unit; Fig. 2).
Wiegmann fails to disclose the claimed (iii) at least one inorganic filler; wherein each of said ion-conductive polymer, alkali salt and at least one inorganic filler is independently fed from a different inlet of the extruder to form a mixture therein, and wherein said ion-conductive polymer, alkali salt and at least one inorganic filler are not pre-processed before being fed into the extruder.
However, Helmers teaches enhancing the lithium-ion conductivity of all solid-state electrolyte via dry and solvent-free scalable series production processes (Helmers at Title). Helmers further teaches the materials used for solid electrolyte production including PEO as the polymer, LiTFSI as the conductive salt and SiO2 as a filling additive (i.e., (iii) at least one inorganic filler) (Helmers at Experimental – Materials and Recipes).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate an inorganic filler as such is known in the art of manufacturing hybrid polymeric membranes given the discussion of Helmers above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. One would have been motivated to incorporate an inorganic filler for the purpose of achieving high lithium-ion conductivities (as recognized by Helmers at Experimental – Materials and Recipes; and Results and Discussion – Enhancing the lithium ion conductivity via scalable production processes, paragraph 9).
Wiegmann, modified by Helmers, fails to disclose the claimed wherein each of said ion-conductive polymer, alkali salt and at least one inorganic filler is independently fed from a different inlet of the extruder to form a mixture therein, and wherein said ion-conductive polymer, alkali salt and at least one inorganic filler are not pre-processed before being fed into the extruder.
However, Seeba teaches an effective extrusion-based mixing and coating process for the manufacturing of battery components (Seeba at Abstract). Seeba further teaches scaling the process from a discontinuous to a continuous kneading process using a twin-screw extruder and omitting preprocessing steps if the equipment (screw configuration for powders, etc.) allows direct use of raw materials, thereby achieving an effective dispersion of the granulate in the extrusion step (Seeba at 3.2. Continuous compounding in an extruder, paragraphs 1-2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the raw material addition to a twin-screw extruder for the formation of a film as such is known in the art of manufacturing hybrid polymeric membranes given the discussion of Seeba above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, with the added benefit of the process being continuous.
Wiegmann, modified by Seeba, disclose the kneading step being scaled to a continuous process in a twin-screw extruder; where pre-processing can be omitted if the equipment allows direct use of raw materials (Seeba at 3.2. Continuous compounding in an extruder, paragraphs 1-2); though, modified Wiegmann fails to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein each of said ion-conductive polymer, alkali salt and at least one inorganic filler is independently fed from a different inlet of the extruder to form a mixture therein.
However, Bilhorn teaches a method and apparatus for continuous formation of a polymer battery component (Bilhorn at Title). Bilhorn further teaches the apparatus 1 including separate and independent feeds being used to add the different materials constituting the polymer electrode component (i.e., wherein each of said ion-conductive polymer, alkali salt and at least one inorganic filler is independently fed from a different inlet of the extruder to form a mixture therein) (Bilhorn at column 3, line 39-59; FIG. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize an extruder having independent feeds for the materials making up a polymer battery component as such is known in the art of manufacturing polymeric membranes given the discussion of Bilhorn above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
As to claim 2: Wiegmann, Helmers, Seeba and Bilhorn disclose the solvent-free method of claim 1. Seeba further reads on the claimed wherein the ion-conductive polymer, the alkali salt and the at least one inorganic filler are not subjected to pre-mixing, blending, (co-)dissolution in a solvent, granulation, desagglorameration, bead milling, ball milling, shaker mixing or any combination thereof before being fed into the extruder (Seeba at 3.2. Continuous compounding in an extruder, paragraphs 1-2), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 3: Wiegmann, Helmers, Seeba and Bilhorn disclose the solvent-free method of claim 1. Seeba further reads on the claimed wherein the extruder is a twin-screw extruder (Seeba at 3.2. Continuous compounding in an extruder, paragraphs 1-2), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 4: Wiegmann, Helmers, Seeba and Bilhorn disclose the solvent-free method of claim 1. Wiegmann further discloses the claimed wherein the ion-conductive polymer is selected from the group consisting of a polyalkylene oxide; a polyalkylene sulphide; a polyalkylene carbonate; a polyacrylate; a blend of at least one of said ion-conductive polymers with polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF), polyvinylidene difluoride-hexafluropropylene (PVDF-HFP), or ethylene-propylene (PE-PP) copolymer; and combinations thereof (Wiegmann at 2. Experimental Section).
As to claim 5: Wiegmann, Helmers, Seeba and Bilhorn disclose the solvent-free method of claim 1. Wiegmann further discloses the claimed wherein the ion-conductive polymer is polyethylene oxide (PEO) (Wiegmann at 2. Experimental Section).
As to claim 7: Wiegmann, Helmers, Seeba and Bilhorn disclose the solvent-free method of claim 1. Wiegmann further discloses the claimed wherein the alkali salt is a lithium salt selected from the group consisting of Li[(CF3SO2)2N], LiN(SO2CF3)(SO2CF2H), Li[(FSO2)2N], Li[(CF3SO2)(FSO2)N], LiB(C204)2, Li[BF2C204], LiC(SO2CF3)3, LiPF3(C2F5)3, and LiCF3S03 (Wiegmann at 2. Experimental Section).
As to claim 8: Wiegmann, Helmers, Seeba and Bilhorn disclose the solvent-free method of claim 1. Wiegmann, modified thus far, fails to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein the polyethylene oxide/lithium salt ratio ranges from 45:55 to 97:3.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a polyethylene oxide/lithium salt ratio range from 45:55 to 97:3, 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.
As to claim 9: Wiegmann, Helmers, Seeba and Bilhorn disclose the solvent-free method of claim 1. Helmers further reads on the claimed wherein the at least inorganic filler is SiO2-, Al2O3, CeO2, TiO2, LiAlO2, ZrO2 or Mg2B2O5- or NanAlnSi96-nO19216H2O(0<n<27) (Helmers at Experimental – Materials and Recipes), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 10: Wiegmann, Helmers, Seeba and Bilhorn disclose the solvent-free method of claim 1. Helmers further reads on the claimed wherein the at least one inorganic filler is used in the range of 0.1% to 65 wt% with respect to the total weight of the hybrid polymer membrane (Helmers at Experimental – Materials and Recipes), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 11: Wiegmann, Helmers, Seeba and Bilhorn disclose the solvent-free method of claim 1. Wiegmann further discloses the claimed wherein: - the ion-conductive polymer is selected from polyethylene oxide (PEO), polypropylene oxide (PPO), polytrimethylenecarbonate (PTMC), polyethylenecarbonate (PEC), polypropylenecarbonate (PPC), polytetrahydrofurane (polyTHF), polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), a blend of at least one of said ion-conductive polymers with polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyvinylidene difluoride-hexafluropropylene (PVDF-HFP) or ethylene-propylene (PE-PP) copolymers, and combinations thereof (Wiegmann at 2. Experimental Section); and - the alkali salt is a lithium salt selected from LiB(C204)2, Li[BF2C204], Li[(FSO2)2N], Li[(CF3SO2)(FSO2)N] and Li[(CF3SO2)2N] (Wiegmann at 2. Experimental Section).
Helmers further reads on the claimed - the at least one inorganic filler is selected from SiO2, Al203, CeO2, TiO2, LiAlO2, ZrO2 or Mg2B2O5 and zeolite NanAlnSi96-nO19216H20 (0<n<27) (Helmers at Experimental – Materials and Recipes), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 15: Wiegmann, Helmers, Seeba and Bilhorn disclose the solvent-free method of claim 1. Wiegmann further discloses the claimed wherein the extruding step b) takes place at a temperature comprised between 50-250 oC (Wiegmann at 2.1 Reference-process-chain; and 2.2 Extrusion-flat-film-unit; Fig. 2).
As to claim 16: Wiegmann, Helmers, Seeba and Bilhorn disclose the solvent-free method of claim 1. Wiegmann further discloses the claimed wherein the solvent-free method further comprises rolling the film resulting from step c) (Wiegmann at 2.1 Reference-process-chain; and 2.2 Extrusion-flat-film-unit; Fig. 2).
[AltContent: rect]Claims 6 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiegmann, Helmers, Seeba and Bilhorn as applied to claim 1, claim 5 and claim 11 above, and further in view of Caradant et al. (“Effect of LI+ Affinity on Ionic Conductivities in Melt-Blended Nitrile Rubber/Polyether,” ACS Applied Polymer Materials, 2020, 2, 4943-4951; herein referred to as Caradant).
As to claim 6: Wiegmann, Helmers, Seeba and Bilhorn disclose the solvent-free method of claim 5. Wiegmann, modified thus far, fails to disclose the claimed wherein the polyethylene oxide is a mixture or blend of at least two polyethylene oxide polymers with different molecular weight as determined by GPC, one of the at least two polymers ranging from 2.000.000 to6.000.000 g/mol and the other of the at least two polymers ranging from 100.000 to 500.000 g/mol as determined by GPC.
Wiegmann, modified thus far, discloses the ion-conductive polymer being a polyethylene oxide (Wiegmann at 2. Experimental Section); though, modified Wiegmann fails to explicitly disclose the claimed ion-conductive polymer is a polyethylene oxide which is a mixture or blend of at least two polyethylene oxide polymers with different molecular weight as determined by GPC, one of the at least two polymers ranging from 2.000.000 to 6.000.000 g/mol and the other of the at least two polymers ranging from 100.000 to 500.000 g/mol as determined by GPC.
However, Caradant teaches utilizing two PEO polymers with different molecular weights (Mw- = 200,000 and Mw = 5,000,000) along with LiTFSI and HNBR to form a solid polymer electrolyte (Caradant at 2. Experimental Section – 2.1. Materials).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a polyethylene oxide which is a mixture or blend of at least two polyethylene oxide polymers with different molecular weights as such is known in the art of forming polymer membrane given the discussion of Caradant above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as well as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
As to claim 12: Wiegmann, Helmers, Seeba and Bilhorn disclose the solvent-free method of claim 11. Wiegmann, modified thus far, discloses the claimed wherein: - the lithium salt is Li[(CF3SO2)2N] (Wiegmann at 2. Experimental Section); and - the inorganic filler is Al203 (Helmers at Experimental – Materials and Recipes; and Results and Discussion – Enhancing the lithium ion conductivity via scalable production processes, paragraph 9).
Wiegmann, modified thus far, discloses the ion-conductive polymer being a polyethylene oxide (Wiegmann at 2. Experimental Section); though, modified Wiegmann fails to explicitly disclose the claimed ion-conductive polymer is a polyethylene oxide which is a mixture or blend of at least two polyethylene oxide polymers with different molecular weight as determined by GPC, one of the at least two polymers ranging from 2.000.000 to 6.000.000 g/mol and the other of the at least two polymers ranging from 100.000 to 500.000 g/mol as determined by GPC.
However, Caradant teaches utilizing two PEO polymers with different molecular weights (Mw- = 200,000 and Mw = 5,000,000) along with LiTFSI and HNBR to form a solid polymer electrolyte (Caradant at 2. Experimental Section – 2.1. Materials).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a polyethylene oxide which is a mixture or blend of at least two polyethylene oxide polymers with different molecular weights as such is known in the art of forming polymer membrane given the discussion of Caradant above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as well as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
As to claim 13: Wiegmann, Helmers, Seeba, Bilhorn and Caradant disclose the solvent-free method of claim 12. Helmers further reads on the claimed Al203 wt% is comprised between 0.1-50 wt% with respect to the total weight of the ion-conductive polymer, the lithium salt and the inorganic filler (Helmers at Experimental – Materials and Recipes; and Results and Discussion – Enhancing the lithium ion conductivity via scalable production processes, paragraph 9).
Wiegmann, modified thus far, fails to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein the polyethylene oxide/lithium salt ratio ranges from 45:55 to 97:3. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a polyethylene oxide/lithium salt ratio range from 45:55 to 97:3, 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.
As to claim 14: Wiegmann, Helmers, Seeba and Bilhorn disclose the solvent-free method of claim 1. Wiegmann, modified thus far, fails to disclose the claimed wherein the step a) further comprises feeding into the extruder an additive.
However, Caradant remains as introduced and applied in the rejection of claim 6, and Caradant further reads on the claimed wherein the step a) further comprises feeding into the extruder an additive (Caradant at Introduction, Paragraph 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate an additive as such is known in the art of forming solid polymer electrolytes given the discussion of Caradant above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. One would have been motivated to incorporate an additive for the purpose of decreasing the crystallinity degree of SPEs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAILEIGH K. DARNELL whose telephone number is (469)295-9287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, MST.
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, Galen H. Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/BAILEIGH KATE DARNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1743 line