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, 3-6, 13-15, 17 & 23-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo (US20160248100) in view of Korzhenko (US20210119210) further in view of Huang (US20210399305) further in view of Sotzing (US20140024792).
Regarding Claim 1, Joo discloses an electrolyte composition (electrolyte with polymer block material, [008]), comprising a hydrogel (water soluble electrolyte, [0103]), including a copolymer and a salt (polymer block electrolyte, [0104]), wherein the copolymer comprises a polymeric center block (block copolymer, [0105], [0106]), wherein the polymeric center block comprises polyvinyl alcohol (PVA block, [0106]).
Joo discloses wherein the electrolyte composition can be degradable to chemical and thermal reactions ([0106]). Joo further discloses wherein the polymer block can be a water-soluble polymer block ([0103]). Joo further discloses wherein the polymer block can contain PVA and PEO ([0107]).
Joo does not directly disclose wherein the electrolyte composition is a rubber-like hydrogel and wherein the hydrogel is biodegradable.
Joo does not directly disclose wherein the copolymer comprises at least two polycaprolactone chains attached to a polymeric center block, and wherein the copolymer is a block copolymer or a graft copolymer.
Korzhenko discloses an electrolyte that can be a solid or gelled polymeric electrolyte ([0048], [0049]). Korzhenko further discloses wherein the polymeric binder can be chosen from copolymers ([0372]). Korzhenko further discloses wherein the copolymer can be formed of copolymers of caprolactone and polyvinyl alcohol ([0372]) or polyethylene oxide ([0276]). Korzhenko further discloses wherein the copolymers can be a block polymer ([0056]). Korzhenko teaches that this structure provides improved performance of the battery ([0016]).
The examiner notes that the modification of Joo in view of Korzhenko would provide an electrolyte with a polymer block formed of polyvinyl alcohol and polycaprolactone, which can be degradable under chemical and thermal reactions. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that since the electrolyte of Joo modified by Korzhenko has the same composition as the instant claim 1 electrolyte, that the modified electrolyte composition would be a rubber-like hydrogel that is biodegradable.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Joo with the teachings of Korzhenko to have wherein the electrolyte composition is a rubber-like hydrogel and wherein the hydrogel is biodegradable and wherein the copolymer comprises at least two polycaprolactone chains attached to a polymeric center block and wherein the copolymer is a block copolymer or a graft copolymer. This modification would yield the expected benefit of improved performance of the battery.
Joo does not directly disclose wherein the polyvinyl alcohol comprises a degree of hydrolysis of less than 80%.
Huang discloses a polymer matrix that swells with water that is formed of polyvinyl alcohol ([0046]). Huang further discloses wherein the polymer matrix is filled with electrolyte ([0046]). Huang further discloses wherein the degree of hydrolysis of PVA can range from 70% to 99% ([0046]), which overlaps the instant claim range of less than 80%. Huang teaches that this structure provides a stable electrolyte ([0016]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Joo with the teachings of Huang to have wherein the polyvinyl alcohol comprises a degree of hydrolysis of less than 80%. This modified structure would yield the expected result of a stable electrolyte.
Joo does not directly disclose wherein the copolymer comprises a mole ratio of caprolactone to polyvinyl alcohol of from about 0.3:1 to about 0.7:1.
Joo in view of Korzhenko discloses wherein PEO is interchangeable with polycaprolactone.
Sotzing discloses a polymer electrolyte matrix ([008]). Sotizing further discloses wherein the polymers that can be used include polyvinyl alcohol, polyethylene glycol, PEG-DA and that these polymers can be interchanged with each other ([0029]). Sotzing further discloses wherein the polymers can be mixed in a weight ratio of 95:5 to 5:95 ([0029]). Sotzing teaches that this structure provides improved flexibility for the electrodes ([0032]).
Therefore it is the examiner’s position that modified Joo with the teachings of Huang discloses a PVA:PCL ratio of 95:5 to 5:95, which overlaps the instant claim range of about 0.3:1 to about 0.7:1.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Joo with the teachings of Huang to have wherein the polyvinyl alcohol comprises a degree of hydrolysis of less than 80%. This modification would yield the expected result of improved flexibility for the electrodes.
Regarding Claim 3-6, Joo in view of Korzhenko further in view of Huang further in view of Sotzing discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Joo does not directly disclose wherein the polyvinyl alcohol comprises a degree of hydrolysis of less than 80%, a degree of hydrolysis from about 30% to less than about 80%, from about 60% to less than about 80%, and from about 75%
Huang discloses a polymer matrix that swells with water that is formed of polyvinyl alcohol ([0046]). Huang further discloses wherein the degree of hydrolysis of PVA can range from 70% to 99% ([0046]), which overlaps the instant claim range of less than 80%, a degree of hydrolysis from about 30% to less than about 80%, and from about 60% to less than about 80%, and from about 75%. Huang teaches that this structure provides a stable electrolyte ([0016]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Joo with the teachings of Huang to have wherein the polyvinyl alcohol comprises a degree of hydrolysis of less than 80%, a degree of hydrolysis from about 30% to less than about 80%, and from about 60% to less than about 80%, and from about 75%. This modified structure would yield the expected result of a stable electrolyte.
Regarding Claim 13 & 14, Joo in view of Korzhenko further in view of Huang further in view of Sotzing discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Joo does not directly disclose wherein the copolymer comprises caprolactone in an amount of from about 5 wt% to 20 wt%, and 8 wt% to about 20 wt%.
Joo in view of Korzhenko discloses wherein PEO is interchangeable with polycaprolactone.
Sotzing discloses a polymer electrolyte matrix ([008]). Huang further discloses wherein the polymers that can be used include polyvinyl alcohol, polyethylene glycol, PEG-DA and that these polymers can be interchanged with each other ([0029]). Sotzing further discloses wherein the polymers can be mixed in a weight ratio of 95:5 to 5:95 ([0029]). Sotzing teaches that this structure provides improved flexibility for the electrodes ([0032]).
Therefore it is the examiner’s position that modified Joo with the teachings of Huang discloses a PVA:PCL ratio of 95:5 to 5:95, which overlaps the instant claim range of 5wt% to 20 wt% and 8 wt% to 20 wt%.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Joo with the teachings of Korzhenko and Sotzing to have wherein the copolymer comprises caprolactone in an amount of from about 5 wt% to 20 wt%, and 8 wt% to about 20 wt%. This modified structure would yield the expected result of improved flexibility for the electrodes.
Regarding Claim 15, Joo discloses an electrochemical device (lithium air battery, [0036]), comprising: An anode ([0037]); A cathode ([0037]); and
Joo discloses an electrolyte composition (electrolyte with polymer block material, [008]), comprising a hydrogel (water soluble electrolyte, [0103]), including a copolymer and a salt (polymer block electrolyte, [0104]), wherein the copolymer comprises a polymeric center block (block copolymer, [0105], [0106]), wherein the polymeric center block comprises polyvinyl alcohol (PVA block, [0106]).
Joo discloses wherein the electrolyte composition can be degradable to chemical and thermal reactions ([0106]). Joo further discloses wherein the polymer block can be a water-soluble polymer block ([0103]). Joo further discloses wherein the polymer block can contain PVA and PEO ([0107]).
Joo does not directly disclose wherein the electrolyte composition is a rubber-like hydrogel and wherein the hydrogel is biodegradable.
Joo does not directly disclose wherein the copolymer comprises at least two polycaprolactone chains attached to a polymeric center block.
Korzhenko discloses a polymer electrolyte that can be formed by a combination of polyvinyl alcohol and polyethylene oxide ([0046]). Korzhenko further discloses that the polyethylene oxide or polycaprolactone can be used in the polymer electrolyte ([0046]), teaching that polyethylene oxide and polycaprolactone are interchangeable in use with polymer electrolytes.
The examiner notes that the modification of Joo in view of Korzhenko would provide an electrolyte with a polymer block formed of polyvinyl alcohol and polycaprolactone, which can be degradable under chemical and thermal reactions. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that since the electrolyte of Joo modified by Korzhenko has the same composition as the instant claim 1 electrolyte, that the modified electrolyte composition would be a rubber-like hydrogel that is biodegradable.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Joo with the teachings of Korzhenko to have wherein the electrolyte composition is a rubber-like hydrogel and wherein the hydrogel is biodegradable and wherein the copolymer comprises at least two polycaprolactone chains attached to a polymeric center block.
Joo does not directly disclose wherein the polyvinyl alcohol comprises a degree of hydrolysis of less than 80%.
Huang discloses a polymer matrix that swells with water that is formed of polyvinyl alcohol ([0046]). Huang further discloses wherein the polymer matrix is filled with electrolyte ([0046]). Huang further discloses wherein the degree of hydrolysis of PVA can range from 70% to 99% ([0046]), which overlaps the instant claim range of less than 80%. Huang teaches that this structure provides a stable electrolyte ([0016]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Joo with the teachings of Huang to have wherein the polyvinyl alcohol comprises a degree of hydrolysis of less than 80%. This modified structure would yield the expected result of a stable electrolyte.
Joo does not directly disclose wherein the copolymer comprises a mole ratio of caprolactone to polyvinyl alcohol of from about 0.3:1 to about 0.7:1.
Joo in view of Korzhenko discloses wherein PEO is interchangeable with polycaprolactone.
Sotzing discloses a polymer electrolyte matrix ([008]). Sotizing further discloses wherein the polymers that can be used include polyvinyl alcohol, polyethylene glycol, PEG-DA and that these polymers can be interchanged with each other ([0029]). Sotzing further discloses wherein the polymers can be mixed in a weight ratio of 95:5 to 5:95 ([0029]). Sotzing teaches that this structure provides improved flexibility for the electrodes ([0032]).
Therefore it is the examiner’s position that modified Joo with the teachings of Huang discloses a PVA:PCL ratio of 95:5 to 5:95, which overlaps the instant claim range of about 0.3:1 to about 0.7:1.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Joo with the teachings of Huang to have wherein the polyvinyl alcohol comprises a degree of hydrolysis of less than 80%. This modification would yield the expected result of improved flexibility for the electrodes.
Regarding Claim 17, Joo in view of Korzhenko further in view of Huang further in view of Sotzing discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Joo does not directly disclose wherein the polyvinyl alcohol comprises a degree of hydrolysis of less than 80%, a degree of hydrolysis from about 30% to less than about 80%, from about 60% to less than about 80%, and from about 75%
Huang discloses a polymer matrix that swells with water that is formed of polyvinyl alcohol ([0046]). Huang further discloses wherein the degree of hydrolysis of PVA can range from 70% to 99% ([0046]), which overlaps the instant claim range of less than 80%, a degree of hydrolysis from about 30% to less than about 80%, and from about 60% to less than about 80%, and from about 75%. Huang teaches that this structure provides a stable electrolyte ([0016]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Joo with the teachings of Huang to have wherein the polyvinyl alcohol comprises a degree of hydrolysis of from about 60% to less than about 80%. This modified structure would yield the expected result of a stable electrolyte.
Regarding Claim 23-25, Joo in view of Korzhenko further in view of Huang further in view of Sotzing discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Joo does not directly disclose wherein the copolymer is present in the hydrogel in an amount of from about 5 wt% to about 35 wt% based on a total weight of the hydrogel, from about 5 wt% to about 20 wt%, based on a total weight of the hydrogen, and in an amount of from 60 wt% or less, based on a total weight of the hydrogel.
Korzhenko discloses wherein the polymeric binder can be in the overall electrolyte structure from a mass percent of about 20% by mass to 70% by mass ([0281]), which overlaps the instant claim range of from about 5 wt% to about 35 wt% based on a total weight of the hydrogel, from about 5 wt% to about 20 wt%, based on a total weight of the hydrogen, and in an amount of from 60 wt% or less, based on a total weight of the hydrogel. Korzhenko teaches that this structure provides improved performance of the battery ([0016]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Joo with the teachings of Korzhenko to have wherein the copolymer is present in the hydrogel in an amount of from about 5 wt% to about 35 wt% based on a total weight of the hydrogel, from about 5 wt% to about 20 wt%, based on a total weight of the hydrogen, and in an amount of from 60 wt% or less, based on a total weight of the hydrogel. This modification would yield the expected result of improved performance of the battery.
Regarding Claim 26 and 27, Joo in view of Korzhenko further in view of Huang further in view of Sotzing discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Joo in view of Korzhenko discloses a PVL-PCL copolymer.
Joo does not directly disclose wherein the copolymer is a graft copolymer.
The examiner notes under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, “graft copolymer” is any structure of copolymer where the copolymers are bonded to the main polymer backbone with side chains.
Sotzing discloses wherein the polymer gel electrolyte can be formed from polymerizable side-chain groups attached to the polymer backbone ([0029]). Huang teaches that this structure provides a stable electrolyte ([0016]). Sotzing teaches that this structure provides improved flexibility for the electrodes ([0032]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Joo with the teachings of Sotzing to have wherein the copolymer is a graft copolymer of PVA-graft-PCL copolymer. This modification would yield the expected result of improved flexibility for the electrodes.
Regarding Claim 28 and 29, Joo in view of Korzhenko further in view of Huang further in view of Sotzing discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Joo does not directly disclose wherein the PVA-graft-PCL copolymer comprises acetate functional groups in ana mount of from about 20% to about 70%, based on a total amount of functional groups, and about from about 30% to about 55%, based on a total amount of functional groups.
Joo discloses wherein the metal precursor contains the acetate functional group ([0100]). Joo further discloses wherein the metal precursor can be contained in the polymer at a ratio of 1:9 to 1:2, ([0113]), which overlaps the instant claim range of about 20% to 70% and about 30% to about 55%.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Joo to have wherein the PVA-graft-PCL copolymer comprises acetate functional groups in ana mount of from about 20% to about 70%, based on a total amount of functional groups, and about from about 30% to about 55%, based on a total amount of functional groups.
Regarding Claim 30 and 31, Joo in view of Korzhenko further in view of Huang further in view of Sotzing discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Joo does not directly disclose wherein the PVA-graft-PCL copolymer is crosslinked.
Sotzing discloses wherein the gel electrolyte compotition can be crosslinked ([0028]). Sotzing teaches that this structure provides improved flexibility for the electrodes ([0032]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Joo with the teachings of Sotzing to have wherein the PVA-graft-PCL copolymer is crosslinked. This modification would yield the expected result of improved flexibility for the electrodes.
Claim(s) 21 & 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo (US20160248100) in view of Korzhenko (US20210119210) further in view of Huang (US20210399305) further in view of Sotzing (US20140024792) further in view of Pan (US20100178545).
Regarding Claim 21 & 22, Joo in view of Korzhenko further in view of Huang further in view of Sotzing discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Joo does not directly disclose wherein the polyvinyl alcohol comprises a degree of hydrolysis of from about 30 % to 65 % or less.
Pan discloses a polymer membrane ([006]) that is formed of polyvinyl alcohol ([007], [009]). Pan further discloses wherein the membrane has an affinity to electrolytes and has hydrophilic monomers ([0011]). Pan further discloses wherein the polyvinyl alcohol has hydrolysis degree of 55-99 % ([009]), which overlaps the instant claim range of 30% to 65%. Pan teaches that this structure provides a battery with high temperature resistance and long cycle life ([006]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Joo with the teachings of Pan to have wherein the polyvinyl alcohol comprises a degree of hydrolysis of from about 30 % to 65 % or less. This modified structure would yield the expected result of high temperature resistance and long cycle life.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments in view of their arguments, see Claims, filed February 27th, 2026 , with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 & 15 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 Joo in view of Korzhenko further in view of Huang further in view of Sotzing under 35 USC 103.
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
Prosecution Insights