Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/395,477

ARTICLE AND METHOD OF MAKING ARTICLE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Aug 06, 2021
Examiner
SRIPATHI, ANKITH REDDY
Art Unit
1728
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Factorial Inc.
OA Round
5 (Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
6-7
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
74 granted / 111 resolved
+1.7% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
67 currently pending
Career history
178
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
68.6%
+28.6% vs TC avg
§102
14.1%
-25.9% vs TC avg
§112
12.6%
-27.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 111 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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) 22-27 & 29-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US20200144667) (Provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on August 6th, 2021) in view of Kim (US20210028439) (Provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on September 26th, 2024). Regarding Claim 22 & 25, Huang discloses a solid polymer electrolyte (polymer solid electrolyte, [002]) comprising: An electrolyte salt ([0020]) and a standalone and non-IPN polymer network comprising a product of cross-linking reaction including at least one cross-linker selected from the group consisting of: a) tri-acrylates and tetra-acrylates; b) modified tri-acrylates and tetra-acrylates; c) silanes and siloxanes; and d) triazinane-triones (crosslinking reaction including polymer, [005], polymer can be triacrylate monomers, [0043]). The examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, in view of the specifications and with consideration to Applicant’s arguments, “a standalone and non-IPN polymer network” can be interpreted to be any polymer structure that is not formed through an IPN polymer structure, where the crosslinked polymer is formed into a distinct individual polymer structure. Therefore, since Huang discloses a cross-linking reaction for a polymer that is not an IPN polymer networks that Huang discloses a standalone and non-IPN polymer network. Huang discloses wherein the at least one cross-linker has at least three cross-linkable terminals (triacrylates including norbornyl methacrylate, methyl methacrylate, ethyl methacrylate and other triacylates can be used which cross linkable terminals, [0043]). Huang does not directly disclose wherein the standalone and non-IPN polymer network has a total weight percentage between 0.1 wt% and 15 wt% based on a total weight of the polymer solid electrolyte. Huang discloses wherein the overall electrolyte contains the polymer, an optional plasticizer, and an electrolyte salt ([0035]). Huang further discloses wherein the mole fraction of the polymer can range from 0.01 to 0.32 ([0039]), which provides a polymer weight percentage that overlaps the instant claim range of 0.1 wt% and 15 wt%. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Huang to have wherein the standalone and non-IPN polymer network has a total weight percentage between 0.1 wt% and 15 wt% based on a total weight of the polymer solid electrolyte. Huang does not directly disclose wherein the at least one cross-linker has at least three cross-linkable terminals. Huang discloses that various triacrylates can be used for the polymer ([0045]), however, Huang does not directly disclose wherein the tri-acrylates and tetra-acrylates are selected from the group consisting of: PNG media_image1.png 82 398 media_image1.png Greyscale , PNG media_image2.png 55 443 media_image2.png Greyscale wherein R4 is PNG media_image3.png 70 217 media_image3.png Greyscale Rs is PNG media_image4.png 62 87 media_image4.png Greyscale or PNG media_image5.png 51 131 media_image5.png Greyscale R1, R2 and R6 are each independently selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, methyl, ethyl, phenyl and methylphenyl, n is an integer between 0 and 50,000, and* indicates a point of attachment. Kim discloses wherein the tri-acrylate can be trimethylolpropane ethoxylate triacrylate ([0018]). Therefore, Kim discloses wherein the tri-acrylate meets the limitation of meeting the formula PNG media_image6.png 102 206 media_image6.png Greyscale where R5 is PNG media_image7.png 85 206 media_image7.png Greyscale , and R6 is a hydrogen. The examiner notes that although Kim is directed to a IPN polymer network, Kim’s polymer choice provides the benefits of improved ion conductivity and a flame retardant effect ([0037]). The examiner notes that these properties are directly related to the chemical composition of the polymer used, and therefore can be applied to the crosslinked polymer structure of Huang, despite Huang not being an IPN polymer network. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Huang with the teachings of Kim to have wherein the at least one cross-linker has at least three cross-linkable terminals and wherein the tri-acrylates and tetra-acrylates are selected from the group consisting of: PNG media_image1.png 82 398 media_image1.png Greyscale , PNG media_image2.png 55 443 media_image2.png Greyscale wherein R4 is PNG media_image3.png 70 217 media_image3.png Greyscale Rs is PNG media_image4.png 62 87 media_image4.png Greyscale or PNG media_image5.png 51 131 media_image5.png Greyscale R1, R2 and R6 are each independently selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, methyl, ethyl, phenyl and methylphenyl, n is an integer between 0 and 50,000, and* indicates a point of attachment. This modification would yield the expected result of improved ion conductivity. Regarding Claim 23, Huang in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Huang further discloses wherein the at least one cross linker has a vinyl as cross-linkable terminals ([0028]). Regarding Claim 24, Huang in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Huang further discloses wherein the cross linker can be a vinyl derivate instead of a polyethylene oxide linker ([0028]). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using Huang’s disclosure to have wherein the at least one cross-linker is free of poly(ethylene oxide) polymer chain. Regarding Claim 26, Huang in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. The examiner notes that claim 26 is dependent off of claim 22. Therefore, since claim 22 requires either a triacrylate or a silanes or siloxane, the use of silanes or siloxanes is an optional limitation. Therefore since Huang discloses the use of triacrylates, Huang discloses the limitations of claim 26. Regarding Claim 27, Huang in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. The examiner notes that claim 27 is dependent off of claim 22. Therefore, since claim 22 requires either a triacrylate or triazinane-triones, the use of triaziane-triones is an optional limitation. Therefore, since Huang discloses the use of triacrylates, Huang discloses the limitations of claim 27. Regarding Claim 29, Huang in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Huang further discloses a plasticizer ([0049]). Regarding Claim 30, Huang in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Huang further discloses a wherein the electrolyte is a lithium salt and the lithium salt is selected from the group consisting of LiTFSI, LiFSI, LiBOB, LiPF.sub.6, LiBF.sub.4, LiClO.sub.4, LiAsF.sub.6, LiN(CF.sub.3SO.sub.2).sub.2, LiC(CF.sub.3SO.sub.2).sub.3, LiDFOB, LiF, LiCl, LiBr, LiI, Li.sub.2SO.sub.4, LiNO.sub.3, Li.sub.3PO.sub.4, Li.sub.2CO.sub.3, LiOH, lithium acetate, lithium trifluoromethyl acetate, lithium oxalate ([0035]). Regarding Claim 31 & 32, Huang in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Huang discloses wherein the plasticizer can be a polymer, a small molecule (i.e., having a molecular weight of less than 1 kDa), a nitrile, an oligoether (e.g., triglyme), cyclic carbonate, ionic liquids ([0034]) including succinonitrile, glutaronitrile, hexonitrile, and/or malononitrile ([0034]). Regarding Claim 33, Huang in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Huang further discloses wherein the crosslinking reaction is performed in presence of an initiator wherein the initiator can be Irgacure initiator, 2,2′-azobis(2-methylpropionitrile), ammonium persulfate ([0044]). Regarding Claim 34, Huang in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Huang does not directly disclose wherein the initiator is between 0.01 wt% and 5 wt% based on a total weight of the polymer solid electrolyte. Huang discloses wherein the instant may be added in a mole fraction of 0.001 and 0.01 ([0044]), which overlaps the instant claim range of 0.01 wt% and 5 wt% basd on total weight of the polymer solid electrolyte. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Huang to have wherein the initiator is between 0.01 wt% and 5 wt% based on a total weight of the polymer solid electrolyte. Regarding Claim 35, Huang in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Huang further discloses an electrochemical device comprising the polymer solid electrolyte ([0019]). Regarding Claim 36, Huang in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Huang further discloses wherein the battery is a lithium-ion battery ([0020]). Regarding Claim 37, Huang in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Huang further discloses an anode and a cathode with an electroactive material ([0020]). Regarding Claim 38, Huang in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Huang does not disclose wherein the anode comprises carbon anode, Li anode, Si anode, Alloy anode, Li4TisOi2, and/or conversion anode materials, wherein the carbon anode comprises graphite, soft carbon, hard carbon, or combinations of thereof, the Li anode comprises Li metal foil, Li metal on Cu, Ni, or stainless steel, the Si anode comprises Si, Si/Carbon composite anode, SiOx (0<x<2), SiOx (0<x<2)/carbon composite anode, the Alloy anode comprises Sn, SnO2, Sb, Al, Mg, Bi, In, As, Zn, Ga, B, and the conversion anode materials comprise MaXb, M is Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, or Cu, X is 0,S, Se, F, N, or P, a and b are respectively 1 to 4. Kim discloses wherein the anode comprises carbon anode, Li anode, Si anode, Alloy anode, Li4TisO,2, and/or conversion anode materials, wherein the carbon anode comprises graphite, soft carbon, hard carbon, or combinations of thereof, the Li anode comprises Li metal foil, Li metal on Cu, Ni, or stainless steel, the Si anode comprises Si, the Alloy anode comprises Sn, SnO2, Sb, Al, Mg, Bi, In, As, Zn, Ga, B, and the conversion anode materials comprise MaXe, M is Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, or Cu, X is 0,S, Se, F, N, or P, a and b are respectively I to 4, ([0081-0082]). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Huang with the teachings of Kim to have wherein the anode comprises carbon anode, Li anode, Si anode, Alloy anode, Li4TisOi2, and/or conversion anode materials, wherein the carbon anode comprises graphite, soft carbon, hard carbon, or combinations of thereof, the Li anode comprises Li metal foil, Li metal on Cu, Ni, or stainless steel, the Si anode comprises Si, Si/Carbon composite anode, SiOx (0<x<2), SiOx (0<x<2)/carbon composite anode, the Alloy anode comprises Sn, SnO2, Sb, Al, Mg, Bi, In, As, Zn, Ga, B, and the conversion anode materials comprise MaXb, M is Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, or Cu, X is 0,S, Se, F, N, or P, a and b are respectively 1 to 4. This modification would yield the expected result of improved ion conductivity. Regarding Claim 39, Huang in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above.\ Huang does not disclose wherein the electrode active material is selected from the group consisting of lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide, lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide, lithium titanate Kim discloses wherein the electrode active material is selected from the group consisting of lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide, lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide, lithium titanate ([0087]). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Huang with the teachings of Kim to have wherein the electrode active material is selected from the group consisting of lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide, lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide, lithium titanate. This modification would yield the expected result of improved ion conductivity. Regarding Claim 40, Huang in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Huang further discloses an electrochemical article that can include acrylate polymers ([0043]). Huang further discloses wherein the article can be used for a lithium battery, lithium-ion solid battery, a polymer solid electrolyte battery, or be used in a capacitor, sensor, condenser, electrochromic elements, photelectric conversion elements, and more ([002]). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Kim with the teachings of Huang to have wherein the article is used in an anode free battery. Regarding Claim 41, Huang in view of Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above. Huang does not directly disclose wherein the additive is present at weight percentage of at least 5 wt% based on a total weight of the polymer solid electrolyte. Huang discloses wherein the plasticizer can be present at a mole fraction of at least 0.1 ([0040]), which provides a weight percentage that overlaps the instant claim range of at 5 wt%. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Huang to have wherein the additive is present at weight percentage of at least 5 wt% based on a total weight of the polymer solid electrolyte. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed January 30th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 22 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Huang n view of Kim under 35 USC 103. The examiner notes that this office action is a second final rejection. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 06, 2021
Application Filed
Jun 28, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 26, 2024
Response Filed
Jan 03, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 14, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 10, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 11, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 16, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 30, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 12, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12555780
NEGATIVE ELECTRODE AND SECONDARY BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12523705
Battery Apparatus and Current Sensor Diagnosis Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12519101
CERIA-CARBON-SULFUR COMPOSITE, METHOD FOR PREPARING SAME, AND POSITIVE ELECTRODE AND LITHIUM-SULFUR BATTERY COMPRISING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12506139
Lithium-Doped Silicon-Based Oxide Negative Electrode Active Material, Method of Preparing the Same, and Negative Electrode and Secondary Battery Including the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Patent 12489161
SECONDARY BATTERY AND BATTERY MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

6-7
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+26.2%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 111 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month