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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durstock (US20190334168) in view of Lee (US20120058378) further in view of Yue (“All solid-state polymer electrolytes for high-performance lithium-ion Batteries).
Regarding Claim 1, Durstock discloses a voltage source (battery, [0017]) and an electrolyte (composite electrolyte, [0017]), wherein: said electrolyte is a mixture in which main components in percent by weight are aluminum oxide and silicon oxide (electrolyte is formed of a ceramic filler, [0016], that has aluminum oxide and silicon oxide as its components, [0137], the examiner notes that because Jiang discloses wherein the ceramic filler is part of the binder material that is used in the electrolyte material, [0016], that the components of the ceramic filler are included in the electrolyte), wherein a combined proportion of the aluminum oxide and the silicon oxide is greater in proportion than any other components in manufacture of said electrolyte (cermic filler is present in a range of 50 wt% to 80 wt% of the entire electrolyte, [0137]).
Durstock does not directly disclose two electrically conductive terminals with an electrolyte between them, wherein said terminals are the same material, or wherein the battery can be a secondary battery.
Lee discloses a voltage source (film battery, [002]) comprising two electrically conductive terminals (battery can include cathode and anode terminals connected to the cathode and anode conductive layers-120/22- respectively, [0025], where the layers are extended out to form the terminals, [0056], Fig. 1), and an electrolyte between them (electrolyte layers-140 and 240 disposed between the terminals, Fig. 1, [0053]). Lee further discloses wherein said terminals are the same materials (terminals can be metallic material, [0056]) whereby the voltage source is arranged to operate as a secondary rechargeable battery (pouch-type flexible film is secondary battery, [0112]). Lee further discloses an electrolyte which the main components are aluminum and silicon oxides (electrolyte contains inorganic additive where the inorganic additives can include silica and alumina, [0015]). Lee teaches that this structure provides a battery with improved productivity in the manufacturing process ([009]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Durstock with the teachings of Lee to have wherein two electrically conductive terminals with an electrolyte between them, wherein said terminals are the same material and wherein the battery can be a secondary battery. This modification would yield the expected result of improved productivity in the manufacturing process.
Durstock does not directly disclose wherein the aluminum oxide and silicon oxide are reactive with each other to provide hardening of the electrolyte.
The examiner notes Claim 1 is directed towards a voltage source, or a product, therefore the claim language “wherein the aluminum oxide and silicon oxide are reactive with each other to provide hardening of the electrolyte” is a product by process claim.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) (Claim was directed to a novolac color developer. The process of making the developer was allowed. The difference between the inventive process and the prior art was the addition of metal oxide and carboxylic acid as separate ingredients instead of adding the more expensive pre-reacted metal carboxylate. The product-by-process claim was rejected because the end product, in both the prior art and the allowed process, ends up containing metal carboxylate.
Yue discloses properties of ceramic fillers and how they can be used in solid electrolytes (6. Organic-inorganic hybrid composite electrolytes, pg. 150). Yue teaches that ceramic fillers can improve mechanical properties, ionic conductivity and interfacial stability of electrolytes (6. Organic-inorganic hybrid composite electrolytes, pg. 150). Yue further teaches that ceramic powders act as solid plasticizers (6.1 Ceramic fillers). Yue further teaches that ceramic effect, such as surface interactions between ceramic particles, help facilitate enhanced transport properties (6.1 Ceramic Fillers).
Therefore, since aluminum oxide and silicon oxide are ceramic fillers, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using Durstock with the teachings of Yue to have wherein the aluminum oxide and silicon oxide are reactive with each other to provide hardening of the electrolyte.
Regarding Claim 2, Durstock in view of Lee further in view of Yue. Lee does not directly disclose wherein said electrolyte is solid material formed by allowing aluminum and silicon oxides to reach with each other, so that following this reaction the electrolyte hardens to a solid form.
Durstock discloses wherein the polymer electrolyte layer is a gel-type polymer (electrolyte uses polymer binder, [0019]), which the examiner notes is a solid form electrolyte under the broadest reasonable interpretation of solid form of electrolyte. The examiner notes that the claim limitation “wherein said electrolyte is solid material formed by allowing aluminum and silicon oxides to reach with each other, so that following this reaction the electrolyte hardens to a solid form” is treated as product by process claim, where the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See Jn re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Therefore Durstock in view of Yue discloses the limitations of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3, Durstock in view of Lee further in view of Yue.
Durstock does not directly disclose wherein the voltage source can be used a wall-element.
Lee discloses wherein the voltage source can be used as a wall-element (film battery can be used as a rollable display, or other various electronic products, [0127]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Durstock with the teachings of Lee to have wherein the voltage source can be used a wall-element
Regarding Claim 7, Durstock in view of Lee further in view of Yue.
Durstock does not directly disclose wherein the voltage source is arranged to operate as a rechargeable battery.
Lee discloses wherein the voltage source is arranged to operate as a rechargeable battery (battery can be secondary battery, [0049]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Durstock with the teachings of Lee to have wherein the voltage source is arranged to operate as a rechargeable battery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 27th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Durstock in view of lee further in view of Yue does not disclose the limitation wherein the aluminum oxide and silicon oxide are reactive with each other to provide hardening of the electrolyte.
Durstock does not directly disclose wherein the aluminum oxide and silicon oxide are reactive with each other to provide hardening of the electrolyte.
The examiner notes Claim 1 is directed towards a voltage source, or a product, therefore the claim language “wherein the aluminum oxide and silicon oxide are reactive with each other to provide hardening of the electrolyte” is a product by process claim.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) (Claim was directed to a novolac color developer. The process of making the developer was allowed. The difference between the inventive process and the prior art was the addition of metal oxide and carboxylic acid as separate ingredients instead of adding the more expensive pre-reacted metal carboxylate. The product-by-process claim was rejected because the end product, in both the prior art and the allowed process, ends up containing metal carboxylate.
The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979) (holding “interbonded by interfusion” to limit structure of the claimed composite and noting that terms such as “welded,” “intermixed,” “ground in place,” “press fitted,” and “etched” are capable of construction as structural limitations). See also In re Nordt Dev. Co., 881 F.3d 1371,1375-76, 125 USPQ2d 1817, 1820 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(holding “the specification demonstrates that ‘injected molded’ connotes an integral structure,” and discussing several cases since Garnero that held “limitations to convey structure even when they also describe a process of manufacture”).
Yue discloses properties of ceramic fillers and how they can be used in solid electrolytes (6. Organic-inorganic hybrid composite electrolytes, pg. 150). Yue teaches that ceramic fillers can improve mechanical properties, ionic conductivity and interfacial stability of electrolytes (6. Organic-inorganic hybrid composite electrolytes, pg. 150). Yue further teaches that ceramic powders act as solid plasticizers (6.1 Ceramic fillers). Yue further teaches that ceramic effect, such as surface interactions between ceramic particles, help facilitate enhanced transport properties (6.1 Ceramic Fillers).
The examiner notes that the combination provides teachings to use the components of aluminum oxide and silicon oxide in a solid electrolyte, which is the same structure as claimed in Claim 1. Therefore the applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims.
Therefore, since aluminum oxide and silicon oxide are ceramic fillers, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using Durstock with the teachings of Yue to have wherein the aluminum oxide and silicon oxide are reactive with each other to provide hardening of the electrolyte.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANKITH R SRIPATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 am - 5:00pm.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/ANKITH R SRIPATHI/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728