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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/26/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 18 & 45-46 are amended. Claims 2, 4, 7-10, 12-15, 19-27, 29-39, 41, 43-44 & 47 are canceled. Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 11, 16-18, 28, 40, 42 & 45-46 are currently pending.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 16-18, 40, 42 & 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burdynska (US 9,926,411 B1) in view of Patel (“Synthesis, Characterization and Material Application of Poly(Urea-Imide)s, Part 1”).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5-6, 16, 18, 40 & 42, Burdynska teaches a film comprising a hybrid electrolyte composition comprising about 60 wt% to about 95 wt% of an ion conducting inorganic material such as a sulfide-based material; and about 5 wt% to about 40 wt% of an in situ cross-linked matrix, wherein the matrix comprises a functionalized polymer binder comprising a polymer backbone such as styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS) (Col. 7, L. 17-24; Col. 21, L.55 to Col. 22, L.53). It is noted that the functionality of the functionalized polymer binder comes from the presence of at least one diene group in the polymer backbone. The first styrene group in the polymer backbone reads on the claimed RM group, the butadiene group in the polymer backbone reads on the claimed divalent linker L and the second butadiene group reads on the claimed R1* group since it includes a conjugated diene. Burdynska further teaches the functionalized polymer binder comprising a plurality of small molecule cross-linkers including maleimide (Col. 19, L. 1-59) which constitutes a dienophile as noted in the instant specification ([0110]-[0114]). Burdynska is silent as to the dienophile cross-linkers forming a thermally reversible bond within the matrix, wherein the thermally reversible bond does not generate a byproduct and each dienophile crosslinker comprising a structure selected from V-1, V-2, V-3, V-4, V-5, V-6 & V-7. However, Burdynska teaches an in-situ cross-linked matrix being formed by providing a mixture comprising a functionalized polymer binder such as SBS and an ion-conducting inorganic material; and reacting the binder with a plurality of cross-linkers including a linking agent such as maleimide (i.e dienophile), wherein the reacting is performed by casting the hybrid electrolyte composition as a film and heating the film to a temperature of from 100°C to 180°C (Col. 20, L.3 - Col. 21, L.45; Examples 5-6). Since Burdynka’s teaches the same hybrid electrolyte composition as well as a substantially similar method of forming an in-situ cross-linked matrix, Burdynska’s matrix would be expected to form a thermally reversible bond within the matrix, wherein the thermally reversible bond does not generate a byproduct in view of Burdynska disclosing the same reaction of a diene (i.e SBS) with a dienophile (i.e maleimide) through a Diels Alder cycloaddition reaction resulting in a carbocycle product. “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)”. See MPEP 2112.01 I. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use bismaleimide compounds represented by the claimed formulas V-1 and V-2, as well-known maleimide-based crosslinking agents which are capable of undergoing a Diels-Alder reaction as taught by Patel (Abstract and Preparation of Bismaleimides 2a-f). “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 17, Burdynska teaches the film of claim 16 but is silent as to the elastic modulus of the film being from about 0.2 GPa to about 3 GPa. However, Burdynska teaches a film of a hybrid electrolyte having substantially the same composition as that of the present invention as noted in the above claim rejections. Accordingly, the presently claimed property (i.e elastic modulus from about 0.2 GPa to about 3 GPa) would be expected to be inherently present within Burdynska’s film as modified by Johnson. “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)”. See MPEP 2112.01 I
Regarding claims 45-46, Burdynska teaches a battery comprising an electrode including an electrochemically active material, ionically conductive particles, an optional carbon additive and an in-situ cross-linked second matrix; and a separator comprising ion conducting inorganic material and in-situ crosslinked first matrix (Col. 24, L. 10-38; Col.24, L.57 to Col. 25, L. 36). Moreover, Burdynska teaches the in-situ crosslinked matrix comprising a binder including a polymer backbone such as polybutadiene (PBD) or styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS) (Col. 7, L. 17-24; Col. 21, L.55 to Col. 22, L.53) and a plurality of cross-linkers including maleimide (Col. 19, L. 1-59) which constitutes a dienophile as noted in the instant specification ([0110]-[0114]). Burdynska is silent as to each dienophile crosslinker comprising a structure selected from V-1, V-2, V-3, V-4, V-5, V-6 & V-7. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use bismaleimide compounds represented by the claimed formulas V-1 and V-2, as well-known maleimide-based crosslinking agents which are capable of undergoing a Diels-Alder reaction as taught by Patel (Abstract and Preparation of Bismaleimides 2a-f). “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”. See MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 5-6, 11, 16-18, 28, 40, 42 & 45-46 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The amendments to claims 1, 18 & 45-46 have prompted a new ground of rejection as presented above. The presently claimed subject matter is found to be obvious over the teachings of Burdynska and Patel.
Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 1, 3, 5-6, 11, 16-18, 28, 40, 42 & 45-46 stand rejected.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm (EST).
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 on (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.
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727