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 .
The Applicant has amended claims 1, 3, 5, 13, 14. The pending claims are claims 1, 3, 5-16.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al., CN 105470569.
Regarding claim 1, Moon et al., teaches a polymer electrolyte (abstract; 0004; 0007), comprising:
a polymer comprising ethylene oxide (EO) repeating units (0007; 0014-0016; 0097);
a reversible addition fragmentation chain transfer polymerization agent (RAFT agent) (0100; 0154) and
a solvate ionic liquid (SIL) comprising (a) a lithium salt (0122; 0127) and (b) a glyme-based material (0234) or an amide-based material (0109; 0112).
Moon et al., teaches a reversible addition fragmentation chain transfer polymerization agent (RAFT agent) (0100; 0154) that is Formula 2 (thiocarbonate).
The polymer is present in an amount of 55% by volume (0332); the RAFT (reversible addition-fragmentation chain transfer) agent (“The polymerization, copolymerization and cross-linking are carried out by reversible addition-fragmentation chain transfer (RAFT) polymerization”) (0158) (polymerization initiator; 0.01 to 5%; 0144) (“The electrolyte composition includes a polymerization initiator to initiate polymerization. The polymerization initiator may be, for example, a thermal initiator or a photoinitiator,” (0144)… “the polymerization initiator may be included in an amount of about 0.01 to 5% by weight based on the total amount of the electrolyte composition” (0144).
Moon does not teach the SIL is present in an amount of 30% to 50% by weight.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 3, Moon et al., teaches wherein the ethylene oxide repeating units: poly(ethylene glycol) monoacrylate (PEGMA) (0234), which is synonymous to PEGMEA (polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether acrylate).
Regarding claim 5, Moon et al., teaches a RAFT agent comprises a compound (0100; 0154; 0158) that is represented by Formula 2 (Fig. 12 in Moon et al.).
PNG
media_image1.png
118
260
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Moon et al., teaches wherein the RAFT agent is crosslinked with the polymer (0100).
Regarding claim 7, Moon et al., teaches wherein in the SIL, a molar ratio of the lithium salt and the glyme-based material is 1 : 0.1 to 3, or a molar ratio of the lithium salt and the amide-based material is 1 : 1 to 6 (0.1 to 2.0) (0128) (0333) (80:20).
Regarding claim 8, Moon et al., teaches wherein the glyme-based material is at least one selected from the group consisting of monoglyme, diglyme, triglyme, and tetraglyme (0234; 0251).
Regarding claim 9, Moon et al., teaches wherein the amide-based material is at least one selected from the group consisting of N,N-dimethylformamide (0143), N,N-dimethylacetamide (0323).
Regarding claim 10, Moon et al., teaches wherein the lithium salt is at least one selected from the group consisting of LiSCN, LiN(CN)2, LiClO4, LiBF4, LiAsF6, LiPF6, LiCF3SO3, LiN(SO2F)2, Li(CF3SO2)3C, LiN(SO2CF3)2, LiN(SO2CF2CF3)2, LiSbF6, 4-LiPF3(C2F)3, LiPF3(CF3)3, and LiB(C204)2 (0127; 0324).
Regarding claim 11, Moon et al., teaches wherein the SIL (solvated ionic liquid) is impregnated inside a chain of the polymer (ionic liquid; 0121-0122) (0141).
Regarding claim 12, Moon et al., teaches wherein the polymer electrolyte is a polymer electrolyte membrane in a form of a network (0100).
Regarding claim 13, Moon et al., teaches a method for manufacturing a polymer electrolyte comprising the steps of: (Si) mixing a monomer to provide ethylene oxide (EO) repeating units (0140; 0329), a reversible addition fragmentation chain transfer polymerization agent (RAFT agent), a solvate ionic liquid (SIL) (“ionic liquid”) (0128) comprising (a) a lithium salt (0128) and (b) a glyme- based material (0234; 0251) or an amide-based material (0112; 0120; 0323) and an initiator (0144), to prepare a mixed solution (0264; 0401); (S2) removing oxygen from the mixed solution obtained in step (S1) above (“a metal/metalloid that can be alloyed with lithium, an alloy thereof, or an oxide thereof. Examples of metals/metalloids, alloys thereof, or oxides thereof that can be alloyed with lithium are Si, Sn, Al, Ge, Pb, Bi, Sb, Si-Y alloys…” (0314); and (S3) applying the mixed solution, from which oxygen has been removed in step (S2) above (“Non-limiting examples of metal/metalloid oxides that can be alloyed with lithium are lithium titanium oxide, vanadium oxide, and lithium vanadium oxide, SnO 2 , and SiO x (where 0<x”) (0314), to a substrate (0146; 0334) and curing the result (“a thermal initiator or a photoinitiator”) (0144) (0334; 0367; 0378); ); wherein the polymer is present in an amount of 55% by volume (0332); the RAFT (reversible addition-fragmentation chain transfer) agent (“The polymerization, copolymerization and cross-linking are carried out by reversible addition-fragmentation chain transfer (RAFT) polymerization”) (0158) (polymerization initiator; 0.01 to 5%; 0144) (“The electrolyte composition includes a polymerization initiator to initiate polymerization. The polymerization initiator may be, for example, a thermal initiator or a photoinitiator,” (0144)… “the polymerization initiator may be included in an amount of about 0.01 to 5% by weight based on the total amount of the electrolyte composition” (0144); and the SIL is present in an amount of about 35% (0363).
Regarding claim14, Moon et al., teaches (S1), 40 % by weight to 60 % by weight of the polymer (inorganic particles; 1% to 60% by weight) (0219); 30 % by weight to 50 % by weight of the SIL(ionic liquid) (50% to about 70%) (0121) (10%) (0332); and 0.1 % by weight to 1 % by weight of the initiator (“0.1 to 2% by weight”) (0144); block copolymers (RAFT agent) (0100) are mixed.
Moon et al., does not teach 3 % by weight to 10 % by weight of the RAFT agent.
However, the incorporation of the monomer containing ethylene oxide (EO), ionic liquid (SIL), and initiator within the claimed ranges, would provide for the RAFT agent in the claimed range. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 15, Moon et al., teaches a method for manufacturing the polymer electrolyte according to claim 13 (0011; 0019-0028), wherein in step (S3), the curing is thermal-curing or photo-curing (“thermal initiator or a photoinitiator”) (0144).
Regarding claim16, Moon et al., teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising the polymer electrolyte of claim 1 (0006; 0025-0028).
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that “the Moon reference does not disclose or suggest DVBTC specifically.”
However, the amendment of claim 1, filed on 11/20/2025, canceled the DVBTC in claim 1; therefore Moon does not have to teach DVBTC.
Additionally, the Applicant argues that “Formula 2 does not teach styrene groups.”
However, this amendment (11/20/2025) has deleted styrene groups from claim 1.
In addition, the Applicant argues that “PEGMA is a good representative of PEGMEMA and both can be used in the claimed invention.”
However, Moon teaches PEGMA, as seen in paragraph (0234).
The Applicant argues that “dependent claim 6 is rejected based on paragraph [0100] of the Moon reference, however, this paragraph does not appear to disclose that “the RAFT agent is crosslinked with the polymer.”
However, paragraph (0100) of Moon teaches “chain transfer agents can be used in the RAFT reaction”, and “the polymerization (crosslinking) by including the monofunctional polymerizable monomer…The polymer product of the copolymer is a cross-linked network phase” (0100).
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights