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 .
Response to Amendment and Claim Status
The amendment filed 13 July 2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every claim objection set forth in the Office Action mailed 4 May 2026. Applicant’s amendments to Claims 2, 3, and 9 have overcome the specific 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections for these claims set forth in the Office Action mailed 4 May 2026. However, Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1 and 11 have not overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 4 May 2026, as detailed below. Claims 4, 5, and 18 are canceled. Claims 1–3, 6–17, 19, and 20 are pending in the application. Claims 13–17, 19, and 20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: [0062] recites “an exemplary example of a GPE polymer is a PVA main chain polymer chain, with PCL side pendant groups or side chains as shown in the structure below:
PNG
media_image1.png
210
933
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”
however, the above structure has an extra methyl group that would not be expected to be present in a GPE polymer with a PVA main chain polymer chain (see structure below with arrow added by the examiner pointing to the extra methyl group):
PNG
media_image2.png
152
535
media_image2.png
Greyscale
which renders the repeating unit “a”, which would be understood based on [0062] to be representing the PVA main chain polymer chain not functionalized with the PCL side pendant groups, to be a repeating unit other than PVA (in actuality, to be a repeating unit of poly(isopropenyl alcohol). In other words, the written description of [0062] is not consistent with the structure shown in [0062], and it is respectfully submitted that the structure in [0062] should instead be the structure:
PNG
media_image3.png
123
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
which does not have the above-noted methyl group and therefore would be consistent with the written description of [0062].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–3 and 6–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are indefinite because they recite in part: “wherein the molded electrolyte composition comprises a gel polymer electrolyte comprising a hydrogel of a copolymer and a salt, the copolymer comprises a graft polymer including a poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA) main polymer chain with polycaprolactone (PCL) side pendant groups or side chains, the copolymer represented by the following structure, wherein a, b, and c are integers greater than zero, and wherein repeating units a and b are randomly distributed throughout the copolymer”, but do not recite any structure. Thus, references to “the following structure” and the variables a, b, and c cannot be understood, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of this office action, the intended “structure” is interpreted to be the following, which appears most consistent with the above written limitation:
PNG
media_image3.png
123
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and which is the structure shown in [0062] and Claims 1 and 11 prior to amendment, but without the extra methyl group in the repeating unit a which, as set forth above in the Specification section and in the previous Office Action mailed 4 May 2026, appears to be an error.
Claims 2, 3, 6–10, and 12 are rejected as they depend upon Claims 1 or 11 and do not resolve the indefiniteness described above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1–3, 6–8, and 10–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chopra et al. (WO 2021/034899 A1; art already of record) as evidenced by Mirriam-Webster (Mirriam-Webster, definition of “cast”; art already of record), in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0133720 A1; art already of record), and further in view of Xie et al. (CN 104157904 A; art already of record).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Chopra discloses an electrochemical device (see biodegradable electrochemical device 100, [0087], FIG. 1; see also biodegradable device 200, [0089], FIG. 2) comprising:
an anode (see anode 120, [0087], FIG. 1; see also anode 220, [0089], FIG. 2);
a cathode (see cathode 122, [0087], FIG. 1; see also cathode 222, [0089], FIG. 2);
an electrolyte composition (see electrolyte layer 112, [0087], FIG. 1; see also electrolyte layer 212, [0089], FIG. 2) disposed between the anode and the cathode ([0087], [0089], FIG. 1 and 2);
a biodegradable barrier layer positioned around an external portion of the electrochemical device (see first and second substrates 102 and 114, [0087], FIG. 1, which can be e.g. melted or bonded with one another to seal the electrochemical device (100), [0088], and which can be biodegradable, [0092]; see also first and second substrates 202 and 214, [0089], FIG. 2, which can be e.g. melted or bonded with one another to seal the electrochemical device (200), [0090], and which can be biodegradable, [0092]; one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that these arrangements constitute a biodegradable barrier layer); and
wherein the electrolyte composition comprises a gel polymer electrolyte comprising a hydrogel (see solid, aqueous electrolyte composition [which] may be or include a hydrogel, [00102]; see also solid gel polymer electrolyte, [00148]) of a copolymer (see copolymer, [00102], [00103]) and a salt (see salt, [00102]), the copolymer comprises a graft polymer ([00102]) including a polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) main polymer chain ([00105], Scheme 1) with polycaprolactone (PCL) side pendant groups or side chains ([00102], Scheme 1), the copolymer represented by the following structure (note that repeating units a and b in the structure below are mapped to the unfunctionalized PVA main polymer chain and PCL side pendant groups or side chains, respectively, as set forth above; note that as Chopra discloses “at least two” PCL chains are coupled to the polymeric center block which will necessarily include many PVA repeating units, it can be understood that not all of the repeating units in the polymeric center block will have appended PCL chains, i.e. some non-functionalized PVA repeating units having the structure of the claimed repeating unit a and some of b will be present in the copolymer of Chopra; note that the structure below also includes acrylate functional groups (FG) appended at the PCL chains, disclosed by Chopra in [00118] and Scheme 1), wherein a, b, and c are integers greater than zero, and wherein repeating units a and b are randomly distributed throughout the copolymer (note that random distribution of the repeating units a and b throughout the copolymer will necessarily be the result of the presence of some non-functionalized PVA repeating units and some PVA repeating units functionalized by the appended CPL side pendant groups or chains, as disclosed by Chopra as set forth above)
PNG
media_image3.png
123
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the electrolyte composition is bubble-free ([00104]); and
wherein the salt comprises ammonium chloride present in an amount of from about 2.8 M to about 2.9 M and zinc chloride present in an amount of about 0.9 M ([00109]).
Chopra further discloses wherein the electrolyte composition is a molded electrolyte composition, by disclosing ([0121], [0123]) that formation of the electrolyte composition can involve casting the aqueous solution used to prepare the electrolyte layer on a substrate or surface prior to formation of the electrolyte layer via treatment with radiant energy; note that cast is defined as “to give shape to (a substance) by pouring in liquid or plastic form into a mold and letting harden without pressure”, as evidenced by Mirriam-Webster (cast 1 of 2 (verb), definition 4a), and thus one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that “cast” in the context of Chopra is analogous to “mold”.
However, assuming arguendo that “casting” as disclosed by Chopra does not read on the claimed molded electrolyte composition, the teachings of Kim can be applied as set forth below:
Kim teaches an electrochemical device (see energy storage device, [0024]), comprising: an anode (see negative electrode, [0024]); a cathode (see positive electrode, [0024]); a molded electrolyte composition comprising a gel polymer electrolyte (see gel electrolyte, [0017], which can be formed in a mold, [0032]) disposed between the anode and the cathode ([0024]). Kim teaches ([0032]) that forming the electrolyte composition in a mold allows for the provision of any desired shape and texture of the electrolyte composition.
Kim is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of electrochemical devices comprising gel polymer electrolytes. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electrochemical device of Chopra such that the electrolyte composition is a molded electrolyte composition, for the purpose of providing any desired shape and texture of the electrolyte composition.
Finally, it is noted that such limitations pertaining to the electrolyte composition being molded are considered to be product-by-process limitations, and even 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, 227 USPQ 964,966).
Chopra does not disclose wherein the molded electrolyte composition has a thickness of from about 50 microns to about 700 microns.
Xie teaches an electrochemical device (see lithium-ion battery, [0081]), comprising an electrolyte composition comprising a gel polymer electrolyte (see gel polymer electrolyte, [0081]). Xie teaches that the thickness of the electrolyte composition is preferably 40 to 80 microns in order to achieve low resistance, high ionic conductivity, and good safety performance.
Xie is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of electrochemical devices comprising gel polymer electrolytes. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrochemical device of modified Chopra such that the molded electrolyte composition has a thickness of 40 to 80 microns, as taught by Xie, for the purpose of achieving low resistance, high ionic conductivity, and good safety performance.
When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I), and thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for the thickness of the molded electrolyte composition with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in low resistance, high ionic conductivity, and good safety performance. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Further regarding Claim 11, modified Chopra can be understood as disclosing a composition comprising the molded electrolyte composition as set forth above.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Chopra discloses the electrochemical device as set forth above. Chopra further discloses wherein the cathode and the anode are disposed in a stacked geometry (see stacked configuration, [0089], FIG. 2).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Chopra discloses the electrochemical device as set forth above. Chopra further discloses wherein the cathode and the anode are disposed in a lateral X-Y plane geometry (see side-by-side or coplanar configuration, [0087], FIG. 1; see also arranged along the same X-Y plane, [0087]).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Chopra discloses the electrochemical device as set forth above. Chopra further discloses wherein the molded electrolyte composition comprises a crosslinker (see acrylate functional group, [00118]; note that the functional group is disclosed in [00118] to promote crosslinking, i.e. acts as a crosslinker).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Chopra discloses the electrochemical device as set forth above. Chopra further discloses wherein the molded electrolyte composition comprises a photoinitiator (see photoinitiator, [00113]).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Chopra discloses the electrochemical device as set forth above. Chopra further discloses wherein the photoinitiator comprises lithium phenyl-2,4,6-trimethylbenzoylphosphinate (see lithium phenyl(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl) phosphinate (LAP), [00122]).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Chopra discloses the electrochemical device as set forth above. Chopra further discloses wherein the molded electrolyte composition comprises a biodegradable electrolyte composition ([00105] discloses that PVA is biodegradable, and [0002] discloses that PCL is biodegradable; as such, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the PVA- and PCL-based molded electrolyte composition set forth above is considered biodegradable).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Chopra discloses the composition as set forth above. Chopra further discloses wherein the molded electrolyte composition is incorporated into an electrochemical device (see biodegradable electrochemical device 100, [0087], FIG. 1; see also biodegradable electrochemical device 200, [0089], FIG. 2), wherein the electrochemical device comprises a battery (see batteries, [0083]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chopra et al. (WO 2021/034899 A1) as evidenced by Mirriam-Webster (Mirriam-Webster, definition of “cast”), in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0133720 A1), and further in view of Xie et al. (CN 104157904 A; see attached machine translation) as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Feig et al. (US 2019/0390068 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Chopra discloses the electrochemical device as set forth above, but does not disclose wherein the molded electrolyte composition is disposed between the anode and the cathode in a laterally non-continuous pattern within a lateral plane consistent with the construction of the electrochemical device.
Feig teaches a hydrogel (see electrically conductive hydrogel, [0030]) including a copolymer (see poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene):poly(styrene-sulfonate), [0036]) and a salt (see ionic species, [0033], which can be a metal salt, [0035]) dispersed in the hydrogel of a copolymer ([0033]); one of ordinary skill will understand that such a hydrogel constitutes an electrolyte composition. Feig further discloses wherein the electrolyte composition is disposed in a laterally non-continuous pattern within a lateral plane consistent with the construction of the electrochemical device, by teaching ([0073], Fig. 1b, 1c, 1d) that the electrolyte composition can be processed into e.g. pyramidal structures by casting the mixture into pre-fabricated silicon molds (note that Fig. 1b, 1c, 1d illustrate that such structures are laterally non-continuous). Feig teaches ([0089]) that specific patterning of the electrolyte composition allows for their effective integration into devices of different architectures for specific applications.
Feig and Chopra are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of hydrogels for electrochemical devices. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrochemical device of Chopra such that the electrolyte composition is disposed between the anode and the cathode in a laterally non-continuous pattern within a lateral plane consistent with the construction of the electrochemical device, as taught by Feig, for the purpose of effectively integrating the electrolyte composition into a device of a specific architecture for a specific application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed 13 July 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections in the Office Action mailed 4 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant argues on p. 9 of Remarks that the disclosure of Chopra does not teach that the resulting electrolyte layer is the claimed molded electrolyte composition merely because one listed deposition option is “cast”. Applicant specifically argues that Chopra, while presenting coating, casting, and printing as substrate-deposition techniques for preparing a layer of aqueous solution, identifies printing as preferred, and further that the examiner’s asserted equivalence between casting or printing on a substrate and the claimed molded electrolyte composited is “overbroad”, particularly where the claims recite a molded electrolyte composition that is disposed between the anode and cathode and is bubble-free within the claimed biodegradable electrochemical device.
This argument is not persuasive. Firstly, Chopra’s apparent preference for printing is not considered significant, as Chopra also lists casting as a viable technique. Furthermore, the examiner respectfully submits that neither the previous nor current Office Action asserts that printing is equivalent to molding, only that “casting” disclosed by Chopra, which as set forth in the rejection above is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of evidentiary reference Mirriam-Webster as meaning “to give shape to (a substance) by pouring in liquid or plastic form into a mold and letting harden without pressure”, is equivalent to molding in the instant case. Finally, as set forth in the rejection above, Chopra also discloses wherein the electrolyte composition is disposed between the anode and cathode and is bubble-free, and therefore it can be understood that these properties are not exclusive to the electrochemical device of the claimed invention.
Applicant argues on p. 9–10 of Remarks that Kim is not a clean drop-in modification of Chopra, because Kim’s technical field is “separators for lead-acid battery electrodes” and “proton-conducting gel electrolytes with an acid immobilized within a covalently cross-linked polymer network for separating electrodes in lead-acid batteries while achieving low ionic resistance”, which is in contrast to Chopra’s disclosure concerning biodegradable electrochemical devices and biodegradable solid aqueous gel polymer electrolyte layers. Applicant asserts that Kim’s mold discussion is tied to that lead-acid context, with the mold providing desired shape and texture, such as “channels or ribs” that create spaces for “free acid” between the electrode and gel electrolyte in the assembled device. Finally, Applicant asserts that the general desire to provide “any desired shape and texture” is a statement of what Kim’s mold can do, and not a reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chopra’s electrolyte composition.
This argument is not persuasive. Kim does disclose proton-conducting gel electrolytes for lead-acid batteries, but as these are gel electrolyte compositions for electrochemical devices, a person of ordinary skill in the art will understand that such a disclosure is relevant and analogous to the claimed invention as well as the disclosure of Chopra. Thus, benefits of molding the gel polymer electrolyte which Kim enumerates, specifically that molding allows for any desired shape and texture, can further be understood as being very applicable to the gel electrolyte of Chopra, as set forth in the rejection above. It is also noted that while Kim may ascribe the benefits of the channels/ribs to spaces for storing free acid, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no problem understanding that the “free acid” disclosed by Kim could be easily equated with other types of free ions transported between electrodes through gel polymer electrolytes within other types of electrochemical devices. Finally, it is respectfully submitted that molding so as to achieve “any desired shape and texture”, as disclosed by Kim, is considered a sufficient motivation for molding the electrolyte of Chopra, as a person of ordinary skill in the art will understand that controlling the shape and texture of the gel polymer electrolyte is certainly desirable so that it can be accommodated easily between the cathode and anode in a variety of different electrochemical device configurations.
Applicant argues on p. 10 of Remarks that Xie supplies only the thickness feature while not curing the missing teaching or suggestion of the claimed molded electrolyte composition in the Chopra and Kim combination, and does not provide a reason why the lead-acid mold approach of Kim would have been applied to a biodegradable solid aqueous gel polymer electrolyte device of Chopra with a reasonable expectation of obtaining the claimed molded, bubble-free electrolyte composition.
This argument is not persuasive. It is noted that Xie is utilized in the rejection as a teaching reference, and therefore it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all of the features of the presently claimed invention. Rather, Xie is utilized to teach a certain concept, namely that limiting the thickness of an electrolyte composition to within 40 to 80 microns allows for the achievement of low resistance, high ionic conductivity, and good safety performance. As already set forth above, the combination of Chopra and Kim does indeed provide a reason and motivation for modification of Chopra with the teachings of Kim, as well as the other limitations of the claims as set forth in the rejection above.
Applicant appears to refer on p. 10 of Remarks to a rejection of Claim 12 in view of Ito. This is assumed to be a typo as neither the present nor previous office action mailed 13 July 2026 rely on a reference Ito for the rejection of Claim 12.
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 JULIA MARIE FEHR, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/J.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/GREGG CANTELMO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights