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, Claim Status, and Other Notes
The amendment filed 17 February 2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims have overcome each and every objection and 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 16 December 2025. 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 Claims 13–17, 19, and 20 are withdrawn from consideration.
The listing of references in the declaration filed 19 March 2026 is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The term “about” in Claims 1 and 11 is interpreted as set forth in [0020] of the instant specification.
Claim Objections
The examiner notes that the instant specification (e.g. [0059]–[0066]) evidences the copolymer structure recited in Claims 1 and 11 is actually a reactant in the step of forming the hydrogel, and that in said step the copolymer structure recited in Claims 1 and 11 is subjected to crosslinking (via radiation in the presence of photoinitiator, see e.g. [0059], Table 1) to form the hydrogel.
Thus, the limitation “a hydrogel including a copolymer” in Claims 1 and 11 is objected as the final hydrogel would be expected to actually include the crosslinked version of the copolymer. A suggested correction is to change this limitation to “the hydrogel of a copolymer”, as is recited throughout the instant specification (e.g. [0006]), to clarify that the hydrogel is formed of, i.e. from, the copolymer structure in Claims 1 and 11. For the purposes of this office action, the examiner is interpreting the limitation in this manner.
Claims 6, 7, 9, and 10 are objected to as they recite the claim element “the electrolyte composition” for which there is insufficient antecedent basis; all iterations should read “the molded electrolyte composition”.
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 considered indefinite for the following reasons:
Claims 1 and 11 do not appear to be consistent with the description in the instant specification. Specifically, when referring to the structure shown in Claims 1 and 11, the instant specification recites in [0062]: “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)). It therefore cannot be determined based on the instant disclosure whether the claimed polymer is meant to be as it is described in [0062], or a more complex polymer with multiple types of main chain polymers (i.e. a copolymer comprising both poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA) and poly(isopropenyl alcohol)), wherein only the PVA main chain repeating units have been functionalized with the PCL side pendant groups, while all of the poly(isopropenyl alcohol) repeating units are untouched. For the purposes of this office action, the structure in Claims 1 and 11 is interpreted as being a structure without the above-noted methyl group so as to be consistent with the written description provided in the instant specification, i.e. to be the structure:
PNG
media_image3.png
123
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 1 and 11 do not define or mention the variables “a”, “b”, and “c” present in the structure, 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, “a”, “b”, and “c” are interpreted as being any integer greater than zero;
Claims 1 and 11 do not indicate whether the repeating units “a” and “b” are distributed in the copolymer randomly, alternatingly, in blocks, etc., and thus a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of this office action, “a” and “b” are interpreted as being randomly distributed throughout the copolymer, which would be consistent with what one of ordinary skill in the art would expect for a copolymer as described in [0062] of the instant spec, i.e. a PVA main polymer chain that is partially functionalized with PCL side pendant groups;
The term “substantially” in Claims 1 and 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite, the term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2, 3, 6–10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they depend upon Claims 1 or 11 and do not remedy the above indefiniteness issues.
Claim 2 is further considered indefinite because in the limitation “wherein the cathode and/or the anode are disposed in a stacked geometry”, “stacked geometry” appears to refer to the spatial relationship between the cathode and the anode, and therefore it is unclear how only one of the cathode or the anode could be in a stacked geometry while the other is not. For the purposes of this office action, the above limitation is interpreted as “wherein the cathode and the anode are disposed in a stacked geometry”.
Claim 3 is further considered indefinite because in the limitation “wherein the cathode and/or the anode are disposed in a lateral X-Y plane geometry”, “lateral X-Y plane geometry” appears to refer to the spatial relationship between the cathode and the anode, and therefore it is unclear how only one of the cathode or the anode could be in a lateral X-Y plane geometry while the other is not. For the purposes of this office action, the above limitation is interpreted as “wherein the cathode and the anode are disposed in a lateral X-Y plane geometry”.
Claim 9 is further considered indefinite as it has not been established which direction is considered “lateral” and to what this direction is defined with respect to, and thus “laterally non-continuous” lacks spatial specificity, i.e. it is not clear in which direction the molded electrolyte composition is meant to be non-continuous in.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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) 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).
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]);
wherein the electrolyte composition is substantially 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 the copolymer represented by the following structure:
PNG
media_image3.png
123
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
by disclosing that the copolymer can be a graft copolymer ([00102]) that includes a polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) center block (CB) ([00105], Scheme 1), at least two PCL chains coupled to the center block (CB) ([00102], Scheme 1; 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), and acrylate functional groups (FG) appended at the PCL chains ([00118], Scheme 1).
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 1–3, 6–8, and 10–12 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 electrolyte composition is disposed between the anode and the cathode in a laterally non-continuous pattern.
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, 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, 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 filed 17 February 2026 regarding the 25 U.S.C. 102 rejection of Claims 1 and 11 in the Office Action mailed 16 December 2025 as being anticipated by Chopra as evidenced by Mirriam-Webster have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant argues on p. 10–11 of Remarks that the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification of “molded” is that it requires formation in a gasket-bounded cavity using a release layer and uniform pressure to achieve “good fidelity” which is characterized by bubble-free, adequate thickness, and uniform pile height of the electrolyte, and that, in contrast, Chopra teaches “coating, casting, or printing ‘on a substrate or surface’ and then UV curing without any mold cavity, release sheet, or pressure regimen”. This argument is not persuasive.
It is first submitted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “molded electrolyte” is considered to be an electrolyte formed by any method wherein it is molded or formed in a mold; the broadest reasonable interpretation is not considered to be the molding conditions disclosed in the instant specification, because while claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. bubble-free, adequate thickness, and uniform pile height of the electrolyte), with the exception of “bubble-free”, are not recited in the rejected claim(s). As also set forth above, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). And furthermore, as set forth in the rejection above, the property of the molded electrolyte being “bubble-free” is also disclosed by Chopra ([0104]).
Furthermore, as set forth in the rejection above, it is noted that “molded” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation, 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). In the instant case, as set forth above, Chopra does disclose an electrolyte made by the same process, i.e. molding, as the claimed electrolyte, considering that Chopra discloses ([0121], [0123]) “casting” of the electrolyte which as evidenced by Mirriam-Webster is defined as “to give a shape to (a substance) by pouring in liquid or plastic form into a mold and letting harden without pressure” and therefore the electrolyte of Chopra is interpreted as being formed in a mold, i.e. molded.
Conclusion
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