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 .
Summary
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted August 19, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 4-5 are cancelled, claims 1, 6, 10, 12-13, 15, 17-18, 21-22, and 29 are amended and claims 33-39 are withdrawn from consideration, resulting in claims 1-32 pending for examination.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “a high-elasticity polymer”. “a high-elasticity polymer” is interpreted as meaning a polymer “that exhibits an elastic deformation of at least 2% when measured under uniaxial tension” in accordance with the specification (pg. 14 lines 4-5).
Claim 5 recites “a lightly cross-linked network of polymer chains”. “a lightly cross-linked network of polymer chains” is interpreted as meaning any amount of cross-linking that leads to the claimed properties of the high-elasticity polymer.
Claim 23: applicant’s explanation that claim 23 is “interpreted as meaning a selection from any of the compounds from any of the groups (a)-(e) is required” is accepted. The claim is interpreted consistent with this explanation.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, it is suggested that the last line of claim 1 be amended to recite “affords an elasticity of the high-elasticity polymer” to be consistent with the language used in the previous lines of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, it is suggested that “succino-nitrile” in line 2 be amended to recite “succinonitrile” to be consistent with the recitation of succinonitrile in claim 12.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 26 is 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.
Regarding claim 26, it is unclear how the “intercalation” expansion treatment impacts the structure of the invention. It is unclear what exactly is intercalated and remains in the final structure of the invention and it does not appear that the instant specification provides further details regarding the intercalation process and resulting structure.
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.
Claims 1, 6-8, 10, 21, 28-29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (Kim, H.N. et al. Double Crosslinked Polyurethane Acrylate for Highly Conductive and stable Polymer Electrolyte. Polymers. 12, 2557 (2020)) in view of Zheng (Zheng, Y., “High-Capacity All-Solid-State Sodium Metal Battery with Hybrid Polymer Electrolytes”. Advanced Energy Materials. 8, 27, 1801885 (2018)).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches an elastic polymer electrolyte separator (polyurethane acrylate, Kim title, abstract) comprising a high-elasticity polymer having an ion conductivity of 9.6 x10-3 S/cm (9.6 mS/cm, Kim abstract) at room temperature (“this room-temperature conductivity value” Kim pg. 2 paragraph 3), wherein the high-elasticity polymer comprises polyurethane (Kim abstract) and a cross-linked network of polymer chains having a triacrylate monomer-derived linkage (Pentaerythritol triacrylate PETA, Kim pg. 2 Fabrication of Gel PUA membranes; “acrylate was polymerized and crosslinked to achieve PA crosslinking” Kim pg. 3 last paragraph). Kim further teaches a fully recoverable tensile strain of the high-elasticity polymer without additive dispersed therein (without LiPF6) being within the range of 2% to 1,000% (Kim Fig. 3d).
The instant specification discloses that elasticity is elastic deformation strain (“these network or cross-linked polymers exhibit a unique combination of a high elasticity (high elastic deformation strain)”, instant specification pg. 16, lines 9-11). Therefore, Kim teaches the cross-linked network of polymer chains having a degree of crosslinking that affords an elasticity of the polymer in the range from 5% to 1,000% (Kim Fig. 3d, PUA with lithium salt, strain % at the end of elastic deformation region is within the claimed range).
Kim teaches the elastic polymer electrolyte separator having a thickness within the claimed range of 10 nm to 200 µm (between 0.1 and 2 mm, 0.1 mm = 100 µm, Kim pg. 3 Section 2.4 Electrochemical Characterization). Kim does not explicitly teach an embodiment wherein the thickness is within the claimed range of 10 nm to 200 µm.
The thickness range of Kim substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 1. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Kim, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Kim teaches the elastic polymer electrolyte separator may be used in electrochemical systems that require highly conductive electrolyte (Kim pg. 9, Section 4. Conclusions). Kim does not expressly teach the elastic polymer electrolyte separator used in a rechargeable sodium cell.
Zheng teaches that “the limited natural reserve of lithium and the associated potential cost increase” has motivated researchers to develop batteries not comprising lithium and “the abundant resources of sodium and its similar chemical properties compared with lithium propelled the efforts of using sodium for future secondary batteries” (Zheng, Introduction first paragraph). Zheng further teaches a rechargeable sodium cell comprising an anode, a cathode, and a solid polymer electrolyte (SSMBs fabricated with the hybrid SPE sandwiched between sodium metal anode and bilayered cathode, Zheng abstract).
Since Kim teaches that their elastic polymer electrolyte separator may be used in electrochemical systems and Zheng teaches that sodium batteries are desirable due to the high abundance and lower cost compared to lithium batteries and comprise an anode, a cathode, and a polymer electrolyte, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate a rechargeable sodium cell comprising the anode of Zheng, the cathode of Zheng, and the elastic polymer electrolyte separator of Kim in order to fabricate lower cost batteries.
Kim does not explicitly teach the ion conductivity being a sodium ion conductivity, however, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the ion conductivity being a sodium ion conductivity would obviously flow from the rechargeable sodium cell of Kim in view of Zheng.
Regarding claim 6, Kim in view of Zheng teaches all features of claim 1, as described above.
Kim further teaches the elastic polymer electrolyte separator comprising a lithium ion conducting material dispersed or dissolved in the high-elasticity polymer (LiPF6, Kim pg. 2 Fabrication of Gel PUA Membranes). Kim teaches that 1 M LiPF6 in EC/DMC was “added at 100 wt% of the prepolymer”. Kim further teaches that is it known to tune the salt content based on a wt% of a polymer matrix in order to tune ion conductivity (Kim pg. 2 first paragraph).
Kim is silent regarding the weight percent of LiPF6 in the elastic polymer electrolyte separator. However, since Kim teaches that 1 M LiPF6 in EC/DMC was “added at 100 wt% of the prepolymer”, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the wt% of LiPF6 in the elastic polymer electrolyte separator of Kim falls within the claimed range of 0.1 to 70 wt%.
Alternatively, since Kim teaches that it is known to tune the salt content to achieve a desired ion conductivity, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the amount of LiPF6 in the elastic polymer electrolyte separator of Kim, including amounts resulting in the elastic polymer electrolyte separator comprising 0.1 to 70 wt% of LiPF6, in order to achieve an ion conductivity suitable for a desired battery application.
Kim does not explicitly teach a sodium ion conducting material. However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute LiPF6 for NaPF6 in order to use the elastic polymer electrolyte separator in a rechargeable sodium cell.
Regarding claim 7, Kim in view of Zheng teaches all features of claims 1 and 6. Kim further teaches the use of LiPF6 (Kim Section 2.2 Fabrication of Gel PUA Membranes) as a lithium ion-conducting material. Kim does not explicitly teach a sodium salt. However, as described above for instant claims 1 and 6, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute LiPF6 for NaPF6.
Regarding claim 8, Kim in view of Zheng teaches all features of claims 1 and 6, as described above. Kim further teaches the sodium ion-conducting material comprising an inorganic solid electrolyte material (NaPF6, modified Kim in view of Zheng). Kim teaches the high elasticity polymer having an ion conductivity of 9.6 x10-3 S/cm (9.6 mS/cm, Kim abstract).
Since Kim teaches the high elasticity polymer having an ion conductivity of 9.6 x10-3 S/cm, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the inorganic solid electrolyte material has a sodium ion conductivity no less than 10-8 S/cm.
Regarding claim 10, Kim in view of Zheng teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Kim further teaches the high-elasticity polymer comprising a lithium ion conducting plastic crystal (LiPF6, Kim pg. 2 Fabrication of Gel PUA Membranes). Kim teaches that 1 M LiPF6 in EC/DMC was “added at 100 wt% of the prepolymer”. Kim further teaches that is it known to tune the salt content based on a wt% of a polymer matrix in order to tune ion conductivity (Kim pg. 2 first paragraph).
Kim is silent regarding the weight percent of LiPF6 in the high-elasticity polymer. However, since Kim teaches that 1 M LiPF6 in EC/DMC was “added at 100 wt% of the prepolymer”, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the wt% of LiPF6 in the high-elasticity polymer of Kim falls within the claimed range of 5 to 95 wt%.
Alternatively, since Kim teaches that it is known to tune the salt content to achieve a desired ion conductivity, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the amount of LiPF6 in the high-elasticity polymer of Kim, including amounts resulting in the high-elasticity polymer comprising 5 to 95 wt% of LiPF6, in order to achieve an ion conductivity suitable for a desired battery application.
Kim does not explicitly teach a sodium ion-conducting plastic crystal or organic plasticizer. However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute LiPF6 for NaPF6 in order to use the high-elasticity polymer in a rechargeable sodium cell.
Regarding claims 21 and 28-29, Kim in view of Zheng teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Kim further teaches a working electrolyte comprising a lithium salt dissolved in an organic solvent (PUA membrane immersed and swollen in 1 M LiPF6 in EC/DMC, Kim pgs. 2-3 Fabrication of Gel PUA Membranes). Kim does not explicitly teach a sodium salt; however, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute LiPF6 for NaPF6 in order to obtain a working electrolyte suitable for use in a rechargeable sodium cell.
Adding the elastic polymer electrolyte separator to a rechargeable sodium cell (Kim in view of Zheng) results in the working electrolyte being in ionic contact with an anode active material and/or a cathode active material.
Regarding claim 31, Kim in view of Zheng teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Zheng further teaches the cathode comprising a Na-based layered oxide (Na-preintercalated bilayered vanadium oxide, Zheng pg. 6 left column).
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Zheng, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Misenan (Misenan et al. Polyurethane-based polymer electrolyte for lithium ion batteries: a review. Polymer International. 71, 7, 751-769. (2022)) and Parveen (Parveen et al. Poly(ethylene oxide)/Polyurethane based gel polymer electrolytes for lithium batteries. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research. 4, 12 (2013)).
Regarding claim 9, Kim in view of Zheng teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Kim does not teach the high-elasticity polymer forming a mixture, blend, copolymer, crosslinked network, or interpenetrating network with one of the sodium ion-conducting polymers recited in claim 9.
Misenan teaches that polyethylene oxide is a known and commonly used polymer in electrolyte systems and has the advantages of mechanical flexibility and chemical stability (Misenan Table 2). Parveen teaches that polyethylene oxide forms stable complexes with inorganic salts and possesses high “solvating power for salt” (Parveen Introduction). Parveen further teaches a polymer blend of polyurethane and polyethylene oxide for use in polymer electrolytes in rechargeable batteries (Parveen title, abstract).
Since Misenan and Parveen both teach that polyethylene oxide is known and suitable for use in polymer electrolytes in rechargeable batteries and Parveen teaches that it forms stable complexes and has high solvation power for inorganic salts and that is may be used with polyurethane, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add polyethylene oxide to the elastic polymer electrolyte separator of Kim, thus resulting in a mixture, blend, copolymer, crosslinked network, or interpenetrating network, in order to obtain a separator with suitable and stable salt complexation and solvation for a desired battery application.
Claims 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Zheng, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Lee (Lee, M.J., et al. “Elastomeric electrolyte for high-energy solid-state lithium batteries”. Nature 601, 217-222; January 12, 2022) in view of Zheng (Zheng, Y., “High-Capacity All-Solid-State Sodium Metal Battery with Hybrid Polymer Electrolytes”. Advanced Energy Materials. 8, 27, 1801885 (2018)).
Regarding claim 11, Kim in view of Zheng teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Kim in view of Zheng further teaches the high-elasticity polymer exhibiting an ion conductivity of 9.6 x10-3 S/cm (9.6 mS/cm, Kim abstract). Kim does not expressly teach the high-elasticity polymer and the plastic crystal or organic plasticizer forming co-continuous phases.
Lee teaches a rechargeable lithium cell, comprising an anode (thin Li, Lee Extended Data Table 1), a cathode (NMC-83, Lee Extended Data Table 1), and an elastic polymer electrolyte separator (plastic-crystal-embedded elastomer electrolyte (PCEE), Lee pg. 217 last paragraph) disposed between said cathode and said anode (Extended Data Fig. 1c), wherein the elastic polymer electrolyte separator comprises an elastomer, a lithium salt, succinonitrile (Lee Fig. 1a). 2. Lee teaches that succinonitrile (SN) functions as an ionic conductive material and that SN has “high ionic conductivity” when complexed with Li salts (pg. 218, Designed elastomeric electrolytes). Lee further teaches the elastomer and plastic crystal (SN + lithium salt) forming co-continuous phases (Fig. 1a).
Lee further teaches that the elastic polymer electrolyte separator may be applied to other batteries such as sodium batteries (Lee pg. 222 last paragraph before “Online content”); therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the lithium based salt for a sodium based salt for use in sodium batteries.
Since Kim and Lee both teach polymer-based electrolytes and Lee teaches that SN has high ion conductivity when complexed with salts, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add succinonitrile to the high-elasticity polymer of Kim in view of Zheng, thus resulting in co-continuous phases, in order to improve ion conductivity.
Regarding claims 12 and 16, Kim in view of Zheng and Lee teaches all features of claims 1 and 10, as described above. As described above for claim 10, Kim in view of Zheng teaches the high-elasticity polymer comprising a sodium ion conducting plastic crystal that is a salt (NaPF6). Kim does not teach the plastic crystal or organic plasticizer comprising a mixture of a sodium salt and a sodium ion-conducting organic species.
Lee teaches a rechargeable lithium cell, comprising an anode (thin Li, Lee Extended Data Table 1), a cathode (NMC-83, Lee Extended Data Table 1), and an elastic polymer electrolyte separator (plastic-crystal-embedded elastomer electrolyte (PCEE), Lee pg. 217 last paragraph) disposed between said cathode and said anode (Extended Data Fig. 1c), wherein the elastic polymer electrolyte separator comprises a lithium salt and succinonitrile (Lee Fig. 1a). 2. Lee teaches that succinonitrile (SN) functions as an ionic conductive material and that SN has “high ionic conductivity” when complexed with Li salts (pg. 218, Designed elastomeric electrolytes).
Lee further teaches that the elastic polymer electrolyte separator may be applied to other batteries such as sodium batteries (Lee pg. 222 last paragraph before “Online content”); therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the lithium based salt for a sodium based salt for use in sodium batteries.
Since Kim and Lee both teach polymer-based electrolytes and Lee teaches that SN has high ion conductivity when complexed with salts, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add succinonitrile to the high-elasticity polymer of Kim in view of Zheng in order to improve ion conductivity.
Regarding claim 13, Kim in view of Zheng and Lee teaches all features of claims 1, 10, and 12, as described above. Claim 13 does not affirmatively require the sodium ion-conducting organic species be a polymerized version. Therefore, modified Kim in view of Zheng and Lee reads on claim 13, as the claim does not further limit the species taught by Kim in view of Zheng and Lee.
Regarding claim 14, Kim in view of Zheng and Lee teaches all features of claims 1, 10, and 12, as described above. Claim 14 does not affirmatively require the sodium ion-conducting organic species be a sulfone or sulfide. Therefore, modified Kim in view of Zheng and Lee reads on claim 14, as the claim does not further limit the species taught by Kim in view of Zheng and Lee.
Regarding claim 15, Kim in view of Zheng and Lee teaches all features of claims 1, 10, 12, and 14 as described above. Claim 15 does not affirmatively require the sodium ion-conducting organic species be a vinyl sulfone or sulfide. Therefore, modified Kim in view of Zheng and Lee reads on claim 15, as the claim does not further limit the species taught by Kim in view of Zheng and Lee.
Regarding claim 17, Kim in view of Zheng and Lee teaches all features of claims 1, 10, and 12 as described above. Claim 17 does not affirmatively require the sodium ion-conducting organic species be a phosphate. Therefore, modified Kim in view of Zheng and Lee reads on claim 17, as the claim does not further limit the species taught by Kim in view of Zheng and Lee.
Regarding claim 18, Kim in view of Zheng and Lee teaches all features of claims 1, 10, and 12 as described above. Claim 18 does not affirmatively require the sodium ion-conducting organic species be a phosphate phosphonate, phosphite. Therefore, modified Kim in view of Zheng and Lee reads on claim 18, as the claim does not further limit the species taught by Kim in view of Zheng and Lee.
Regarding claim 19, Kim in view of Zheng and Lee teaches all features of claims 1, 10, and 12 as described above. Claim 19 does not affirmatively require the sodium ion-conducting organic species be a siloxane or silane. Therefore, modified Kim in view of Zheng and Lee reads on claim 19, as the claim does not further limit the species taught by Kim in view of Zheng and Lee.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Zheng, as applied to instant claim 1 above, and in further view of Gao (Gao, H., et al. “A Composite Gel-Polymer/Gass-Fiber Electrolyte for Sodium-Ion Batteries”. Advanced Energy Materials. 5, 9, (2015)).
Regarding claim 20, Kim in view of Zheng teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Kim does not teach the high-elasticity polymer containing a reinforcement material.
However, Gao teaches the addition of glass-fiber paper to improve mechanical strength of gel-polymer electrolytes (Gao, Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add glass fiber to the elastic polymer electrolyte separator of Kim in order to improve mechanical strength.
Claims 2-3 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Zheng, as applied to instant claim 1 above, and in further view of Zhamu (US 20180233784 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Kim in view of Zheng teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Kim in view of Zheng teaches the elastic polymer electrolyte separator used in a rechargeable sodium cell. Zheng further teaches the anode being a sodium metal anode (Zheng abstract). Zheng does not expressly teach an anode current collector.
However, Zhamu teaches sodium metal batteries comprising sodium metal as the anode active material (Zhamu [1]) with an anode current collector supporting the anode active material (Abstract).
Since, Zhamu teaches that it is suitable for sodium metal batteries to comprise sodium metal as an active material that is supported by an anode current collector, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate a sodium metal cell comprising the elastic polymer electrolyte separator of Kim and a sodium metal containing active material on an anode current collector.
Claims 2 and 3 appear to be claiming two different states of a sodium metal anode. The structure of an anode capable of having sodium on an anode current collector is required by claims 2 and 3. A sodium metal cell as taught by Kim in view of Zheng and Zhamu, would meet the structural limitation of an anode capable of having sodium on an anode current collector.
Regarding claim 22, Kim in view of Zheng teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Kim and Zheng do not teach the anode having an anode active material selected from the list recited in instant claim 22.
However, Zhamu teaches that graphite particles, hard carbon, and soft carbon are known and suitable anode active materials for use in rechargeable sodium cells (Zhamu [44]).
Since Zhamu teaches that graphite particles, hard carbon, and soft carbon are known and suitable anode active materials for use in rechargeable sodium cells, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use graphite particles, hard carbon, or soft carbon as the anode active material in the sodium cell of Kim in view of Zheng in order to obtain an anode suitable for use in rechargeable sodium cells for a desired application.
Regarding claim 23, Kim in view of Zheng teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Kim and Zheng do not teach the anode having an anode active material selected from the list recited in instant claim 23.
However, Zhamu teaches a rechargeable sodium cell wherein the anode active material is selected from the group consisting of (a) Sodium- or potassium-doped silicon (Si), germanium (Ge), tin (Sn), lead (Pb), antimony (Sb), bismuth (Bi), zinc (Zn), aluminum (Al), titanium (Ti), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), manganese (Mn), cadmium (Cd), and mixtures thereof; (b) Sodium- or potassium-containing alloys or intermetallic compounds of Si, Ge, Sn, Pb, Sb, Bi, Zn, Al, Ti, Co, Ni, Mn, Cd, and their mixtures; (c) Sodium- or potassium-containing oxides, carbides, nitrides, sulfides, phosphides, selenides, tellurides, or antimonides of Si, Ge, Sn, Pb, Sb, Bi, Zn, Al, Fe, Ti, Co, Ni, Mn, Cd, and mixtures or composites thereof, (d) Sodium or potassium salts; (e) particles of graphite, hard carbon, soft carbon or carbon particles and pre-sodiated versions thereof and combinations thereof (Zhamu [44]).
Since Zhamu teaches the anode active materials recited in instant claim 23 known and suitable for use in rechargeable sodium cells, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an anode material from the list recited in instant claim 23 in the sodium cell of Kim in view of Zheng in order to obtain an anode suitable for use in rechargeable sodium cells for a desired applicatoin.
Claims 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Zheng, as applied to instant claim 1 above, and in further view of Zhamu and Cai (Cai, Y. et al. “Influences of conductive additives on electrochemical performances of artificial graphite anode with different shapes for lithium ion batteries”. Electrochimica Acta 58, 481-487 (2011)).
Regarding claim 24, Kim in view of Zheng teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Kim and Zheng do not teach the anode having an anode active material comprising a carbon or graphite material recited in instant claim 24.
Zhamu teaches a cathode comprising a conductive material comprising a carbon or graphite material selected from meso-phase pitch, meso-phase carbon, meso carbon micro-beads (MCMB), coke particles, expanded graphite flakes, artificial graphite particles, natural graphite particles, highly oriented pyrolytic graphite, soft carbon particles, hard carbon particles, multi-walled carbon nanotubes, carbon nano-fibers, carbon fibers, graphite nano-fibers, graphite fibers, carbonized polymer fibers, or a combination thereof, wherein the carbon or graphite material has an inter-planar spacing d002 value from 0.27 nm to 0.42 nm prior to a chemical or physical expansion treatment and 0.43 nm to 2.0 nm after an expansion treatment (Zhamu [28]).
Cai teaches that it is suitable and known to add conductive additives such as carbon black and artificial graphite to anodes to improve capacity and rate capability (Cai pf. 481, right column first paragraph).
Since Zhamu teaches a conductive material comprising a carbon or graphite material recited in instant claim 24 and Cai teaches that it is suitable and known to add conductive additives to anodes, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a carbon or graphite material, as claimed in instant claim 24, to the anode of Kim in view of Zheng in order to obtain an anode with suitable capacity and rate capability according to a desired battery application.
Regarding claim 25, Kim in view of Zheng, Zhamu, and Cai teaches all features of claims 1 and 24, as described above. Kim and Zheng do not teach the carbon or graphite material being graphite foam or graphene planes.
However, Zhamu teaches the carbon or graphite material being selected from “graphite foam or graphene foam having pores and pore walls, wherein the pore walls contain a stack of bonded graphene planes having an expanded inter-planar spacing d002 from 0.45 to 1.5 nm” (Zhamu [29]).
The inter-planar spacing range of Zhamu substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 25. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Zhamu, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claims 26 and 27, Kim in view of Zheng, Zhamu, and Cai teaches all features of claims 1 and 24, as described above. Kim and Zheng do not teach an expansion treatment recited in instant claim 24 or the carbon or graphite material containing a non-carbon element.
However, Zhamu teaches the expansion treatment may include “oxidation, fluorination, bromination, chlorination, nitrogenation, intercalation, combined oxidation-intercalation, combined fluorination-intercalation, combined bromination-intercalation, combined chlorination-intercalation, or combined nitrogenation-intercalation of said graphite or carbon material” (Zhamu [31]). Zhamu further teaches that the carbon or graphite material may contain “a non-carbon element selected from oxygen, fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, nitrogen, hydrogen, or boron” (Zhamu [32]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an expansion treatment from those recited in instant claim 26 and use a carbon or graphite material containing a non-carbon element from the list recited in instant claim 27 in order to obtain a carbon or graphite material with desired inter-planar spacing.
Claims 30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Zheng, as applied to instant claim 1 above, and in further view of Xiang (Xiang, X., et al. “Recent Advance and Prospects of Cathode Materials for Sodium-Ion Batteries”. Advanced Materials. 27, 5343-5364 (2015)).
Regarding claim 30, Kim in view of Zheng teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Zheng teaches the cathode comprising Na0.68V2O5 (Zheng pg. 7 Experimental Section). Kim and Zheng do not teach the cathode comprising a cathode active material in the list recited in instant claim 30.
However, Xiang teaches different cathode active materials for use in sodium batteries, with Na3V2(PO4)3 being a known and suitable option (Xiang Table 1).
Since Xiang teaches that Na3V2(PO4)3 is a known and suitable cathode active material for sodium batteries, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the cathode active material of Kim in view of Zheng for Na3V2(PO4)3 to obtain a cathode for a sodium battery capable of intercalating and de-intercalating sodium ions. The simple substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to someone of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2413(I)(B).
Regarding claim 32, Kim in view of Zheng teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Kim and Zheng do not teach the cathode comprising a cathode active material in the list recited in instant claim 32.
However, Xiang teaches different cathode active materials for use in sodium batteries, with Na3V2(PO4)2F3 being a known and suitable option (Xiang Table 1).
Since Xiang teaches that Na3V2(PO4)2F3 is a known and suitable cathode active material for sodium batteries, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the cathode active material of Kim in view of Zheng for Na3V2(PO4)2F3 to obtain a cathode for a sodium battery capable of intercalating and de-intercalating sodium ions. The simple substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to someone of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2413(I)(B).
Claims 1-3, 9, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over U.S. Patent No. US11677101B2 (He) in view of Zheng and Jang (US 2023/0261320 A1).
Applicant has attempted to show that subject matter disclosed in the reference Jang (US 2023/0261320 A1) is excepted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) by showing that the claimed invention was owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same entity as Global Graphene Group, Inc. at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (page 15 of the response received August 19, 2025).
However, applicant has failed to provide a statement that the claimed invention and the subject matter disclosed were owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same person no later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention in a conspicuous manner that complies with MPEP 717.02(a). MPEP 717.02(a) states “The statement should either be on or begin on a separate sheet and must not be directed to other matters. The statement must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b).” Therefore, the reference is not excepted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Applicant must file the required submission in order to properly except the reference subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C). See MPEP § 2154.02(c).
The Examiner notes that a telephonic call to Attorney Robert G. Crouch was made on September 24, 2025, and a voicemail was left to inform applicant of the proper format for filing a statement establishing common ownership that complies with MPEP 717.02(a); however, no response was received.
Regarding claim 1, He discloses a rechargeable battery (lithium secondary battery), comprising an anode, a cathode, and an elastic polymer electrolyte separator (elastic polymer protective layer) disposed between said cathode and said anode, wherein said elastic polymer electrolyte separator has a thickness from 10 nm to 200 m and comprises a high- elasticity polymer having a sodium ion conductivity from 10-8 S/cm to 5 x 10-2 S/cm at room temperature and a fully recoverable tensile strain from 2% to 1,000% when measured without any additive dispersed therein (He claim 1).
He does not disclose a rechargeable sodium cell. However, Zheng teaches that “the limited natural reserve of lithium and the associated potential cost increase” has motivated researchers to develop batteries not comprising lithium and “the abundant resources of sodium and its similar chemical properties compared with lithium propelled the efforts of using sodium for future secondary batteries” (Zheng, Introduction first paragraph).
Since Zheng teaches that sodium batteries are desirable due to the high abundance and lower cost compared to lithium batteries, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate a rechargeable sodium cell comprising an anode, a cathode, and the elastic polymer electrolyte separator claimed by He in order to fabricate lower cost batteries.
He discloses the high-elasticity polymer comprising an elastomer or rubber selected from natural polyisoprene, synthetic polyisoprene, polybutadiene, chloroprene rubber, polychloroprene, butyl rubber, poly(butyl diacrylate), styrene-butadiene rubber, nitrile rubber, ethylene propylene rubber, ethylene propylene diene rubber, metallocene-based poly(ethylene-co-octene) elastomer, poly(ethylene-co-butene) elastomer,styrene-ethylene-butadiene-styrene elastomer, epichlorohydrin rubber, polyacrylic rubber, silicone rubber, fluorosilicone rubber, perfluoroelastomers, polyether block amides, chlorosulfonated polyethylene, ethylene-vinyl acetate, thermoplastic elastomer, protein resilin, protein elastin, ethylene oxide-epichlorohydrin copolymer, polysiloxane, poly(alkyl siloxane), polyurethane, urethane-urea copolymer, urethane-acrylic copolymer, a copolymer thereof, a sulfonated version thereof, or a combination thereof (He claim 19).
He is silent regarding the degree of crosslinking and elasticity of the polymer. However, Jang discloses an elastic polymer separator with thickness, ion conductivity, and fully recoverable tensile strain values within the claimed ranges (Jang claim 1) and comprising a high-elasticity polymer (Jang claim 1).
Jang further discloses that the high elasticity polymer contains a lightly cross-linked network of polymer chains having an ether linkage, nitrile-derived linkage, benzo peroxide-derived linkage, ethylene oxide or ethylene glycol linkage, propylene oxide linkage, vinyl alcohol linkage, cyano-resin linkage, triacrylate monomer-derived linkage, tetraacrylate monomer-derived linkage, a derivative thereof, or a combination thereof, in the cross-linked network of polymer chains having a degree of crosslinking that affords an elasticity of the polymer in the range from 5% to 1,000% (Jang claim 5) to “impart a high elastic deformation” (Jang [94]).
Since Jang teaches that it is suitable to form a high elasticity polymer as described above, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the high elasticity polymer of He having a lightly cross-linked network of polymer chains having an ether linkage, nitrile-derived linkage, benzo peroxide-derived linkage, ethylene oxide or ethylene glycol linkage, propylene oxide linkage, vinyl alcohol linkage, cyano-resin linkage, triacrylate monomer-derived linkage, tetraacrylate monomer-derived linkage, a derivative thereof, or a combination thereof, in the cross-linked network of polymer chains having a degree of crosslinking that affords an elasticity of the polymer in the range from 5% to 1,000% in order to achieve elastic deformation.
Regarding claim 2 and 3, He in view of Zheng and Jang discloses the rechargeable cell of claim 1, which is a lithium metal cell wherein the anode has an anode current collector but initially the anode has no lithium or lithium alloy as an anode active material supported by said anode current collector when the battery cell is made and prior to a charge or discharge operation of the battery, and the rechargeable cell of claim 1 being a lithium metal cell wherein the anode has an anode current collector and an amount of lithium or lithium alloy as an anode active material supported by said anode current collector (He claims 5-6).
As described, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate a sodium cell instead of a lithium cell, which would result in sodium metal being substituted for lithium metal.
Regarding claim 9, He in view of Zheng and Jang discloses the high-elasticity polymer forms a mixture, blend, copolymer, crosslinked network, or interpenetrating network with a polymer selected from poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO), Polypropylene oxide (PPO), polyethylene glycol (PEG), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), poly(vinyl pyrrolidone) (PVP), poly(ethyl methacrylate) (PEMA), poly(acrylonitrile) (PAN), poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVdF), Poly bis-methoxy ethoxyethoxide-phosphazenex, Polyvinyl chloride, Polydimethylsiloxane, poly(vinylidene fluoride)-hexafluoropropylene (PVDF-HFP), a sulfonated derivative thereof, or a combination thereof (He claim 22).
Regarding claim 21, He in view of Zheng and Jang discloses a working electrolyte in ionic contact with an anode active material and/or a cathode active material wherein said working electrolyte is selected from an organic liquid electrolyte, ionic liquid electrolyte, polymer gel electrolyte, solid polymer electrolyte identical to or different than the high- elasticity polymer in composition or structure, inorganic solid electrolyte, or a quasi-solid electrolyte having a sodium salt dissolved in an organic solvent or ionic liquid with a salt concentration higher than 2.0 M, or a combination thereof (He claim 15).
Claims 1-3, 6, and 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jang (US 2023/0261320 A1) in view of Zheng.
Applicant has attempted to show that subject matter disclosed in the reference Jang (US 2023/0261320 A1) is excepted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) by showing that the claimed invention was owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same entity as Global Graphene Group, Inc. at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (page 16 of the response received August 19, 2025).
However, applicant has failed to provide a statement that the claimed invention and the subject matter disclosed were owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same person no later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention in a conspicuous manner that complies with MPEP 717.02(a). MPEP 717.02(a) states “The statement should either be on or begin on a separate sheet and must not be directed to other matters. The statement must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b).” Therefore, the reference is not excepted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Applicant must file the required submission in order to properly except the reference subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C). See MPEP § 2154.02(c).
The Examiner notes that a telephonic call to Attorney Robert G. Crouch was made on September 24, 2025, and a voicemail was left to inform applicant of the proper format for filing a statement establishing common ownership that complies with MPEP 717.02(a); however, no response was received.
Regarding claim 1, Jang discloses a rechargeable battery (lithium metal battery), comprising an anode, a cathode, and an elastic polymer electrolyte separator (elastic polymer separator) disposed between said cathode and said anode, wherein said elastic polymer electrolyte separator has a thickness from 10 nm to 200 µm (50 nm to 100 µm, Jang claim 1) and comprises a high- elasticity polymer having a sodium ion conductivity from 10-8 S/cm to 5 x 10-2 S/cm (10-6 S/cm 5 x 10-2 S/cm, Jang claim 1) at room temperature and a fully recoverable tensile strain from 2% to 1,000% when measured without any additive dispersed therein (Jang claim 1).
Jang does not disclose a rechargeable sodium cell. However, Zheng teaches that “the limited natural reserve of lithium and the associated potential cost increase” has motivated researchers to develop batteries not comprising lithium and “the abundant resources of sodium and its similar chemical properties compared with lithium propelled the efforts of using sodium for future secondary batteries” (Zheng, Introduction first paragraph).
Since Zheng teaches that sodium batteries are desirable due to the high abundance and lower cost compared to lithium batteries, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate a rechargeable sodium cell comprising an anode, a cathode, and the elastic polymer electrolyte separator claimed by Jang in order to fabricate lower cost batteries. The ordinary artisan would recognize that the instances of lithium in the claimed invention would be substituted for sodium in order to fabricate a sodium cell in both instant claim 1 and dependent claims of instant claim 1 discussed below.
Jang discloses the high-elasticity polymer comprising an elastomer or rubber selected from natural polyisoprene, synthetic polyisoprene, polybutadiene, chloroprene rubber, polychloroprene, butyl rubber, poly(butyl diacrylate), styrene-butadiene rubber, nitrile rubber, ethylene propylene rubber, ethylene propylene diene rubber, metallocene-based poly(ethylene-co-octene) elastomer, poly(ethylene-co-butene) elastomer,styrene-ethylene-butadiene-styrene elastomer, epichlorohydrin rubber, polyacrylic rubber, silicone rubber, fluorosilicone rubber, perfluoroelastomers, polyether block amides, chlorosulfonated polyethylene, ethylene-vinyl acetate, thermoplastic elastomer, protein resilin, protein elastin, ethylene oxide-epichlorohydrin copolymer, polysiloxane, poly(alkyl siloxane), polyurethane, urethane-urea copolymer, urethane-acrylic copolymer, a copolymer thereof, a sulfonated version thereof, or a combination thereof (Jang claim 4).
Jang discloses the high-elasticity polymer containing a lightly cross-linked network of polymer chains having an ether linkage, nitrile- derived linkage, benzo peroxide-derived linkage, ethylene oxide or ethylene glycol linkage,propylene oxide linkage, vinyl alcohol linkage, cyano-resin linkage, triacrylate monomer- derived linkage, tetraacrylate monomer-derived linkage, a derivative thereof, or a combination thereof, and the cross-linked network of polymer chains has a degree of crosslinking that affords an elasticity of the polymer in the range from 5% to 1,000% (Jang claim 5).
Regarding claim 2 and 3, Jang discloses the rechargeable cell of claim 1, which is a lithium metal cell wherein the anode has an anode current collector but initially the anode has no lithium or lithium alloy as an anode active material supported by said anode current collector when the battery cell is made and prior to a charge or discharge operation of the battery, and the rechargeable cell of claim 1 being a lithium metal cell wherein the anode has an anode current collector and an amount of lithium or lithium alloy as an anode active material supported by said anode current collector (Jang claims 2-3).
As described, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate a sodium cell instead of a lithium cell, which would result in sodium metal being substituted for lithium metal.
Regarding claim 6, Jang discloses the elastic polymer separator further comprising from 0.1% to 70% by weight of a lithium ion-conducting material dispersed or dissolved in the high-elasticity polymer (Jang claim 6). As described, above it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute lithium for sodium in order to fabricate a sodium cell.
Regarding claim 9, Jang discloses the high-elasticity polymer forming a mixture, blend, copolymer, crosslinked network, or interpenetrating network with a sodium ion-conducting polymer selected from poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO), Polypropylene oxide (PPO), polyethylene glycol (PEG), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), poly(vinyl pyrrolidone) (PVP), poly(ethyl methacrylate) (PEMA), poly(acrylonitrile) (PAN), poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVdF), Poly bis-methoxy ethoxyethoxide-phosphazenex, Polyvinyl chloride, Polydimethylsiloxane, poly(vinylidene fluoride)-hexafluoropropylene (PVDF-HFP), a sulfonated derivative thereof, or a combination thereof (Jang claim 9).
Regarding claim 10, Jang discloses the high-elasticity polymer comprising from 5% to 95% by weight of a sodium ion-conducting plastic crystal or organic plasticizer (organic domain phase) dispersed in or connected to the high-elasticity polymer (Jang claim 10).
Regarding claim 11, Jang discloses the high-elasticity polymer and the plastic crystal or organic plasticizer (organic domain phase) form co-continuous phases exhibiting an ion conductivity no less than 10-5 S/cm (Jang claim 11).
Regarding claim 12, Jang discloses the plastic crystal or organic plasticizer comprising a mixture of a salt and an ion-conducting organic species selected from a fluorinated carbonate, hydrofluoroether, fluorinated vinyl carbonate, fluorinated ester, fluorinated vinyl ester, fluorinated vinyl ether, sulfone, sulfide, nitrile, phosphate, phosphite, phosphonate, sulfate, siloxane,silane,1,3-dioxolane (DOL), 1,2-dimethoxyethane (DME), tetraethylene glycol dimethylether (TEGDME), poly(ethylene glycol) dimethyl ether (PEGDME), diethylene glycol dibutyl ether (DEGDBE), 2-ethoxyethyl ether (EEE), sulfolane, acetonitrile (AN), acrylonitrile, succinoniitrile, fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), an ionic liquid solvent, a polymerized version thereof, or a combination thereof (Jang claim 12).
Regarding claim 13, Jang discloses the polymerized version of the organic species having a molecular weight less than 10,000 g/mole (Jang claim 13).
Regarding claim 14, Jang discloses the sulfone or sulfide selected from vinyl sulfone, allyl sulfone, alkyl vinyl sulfone, aryl vinyl sulfone, vinyl sulfide, a vinyl- containing variant of TrMS, MTrMS, TMS, EMS, MMES, EMES, EMEES, or a combination thereof (Jang claim 15).
Regarding claim 15, Jang discloses the vinyl sulfone or sulfide selected from ethyl vinyl sulfide, allyl methyl sulfide, phenyl vinyl sulfide, phenyl vinyl sulfoxide, allyl phenyl sulfone, allyl methyl sulfone, divinyl sulfone or a combination thereof, wherein the vinyl sulfone does not include methyl ethylene sulfone and ethyl vinyl sulfone (Jang claim 16).
Regarding claim 16, Jang discloses the nitrile comprising a dinitrile or selected from AND GLN, SEN and a combination thereof (Jang claim 17).
Regarding claim 17, Jang discloses the phosphate selected form allyl-type, vinyl-type, styrenic-type and methacrylic-type monomers bearing a phosphonate moiety (Jang claim 18).
Regarding claim 18, Jang discloses the phosphate, phosphonate, phosphonic acid, phosphazene, or phosphite selected from TMP, TEP, TFP, TDP, DPOF, DMMIP, DMMEM P, tris(trimethylsilyl)phosphite (TTSPi), alkyl phosphate, triallyl phosphate (TAP), a combination thereof (Jang claim 19).
Regarding claim 19, Jang discloses the siloxane or silane selected from alkylsiloxane (Si-O), alkyylsilane (Si-C), liquid oligomeric silaxane (-Si-O-Si-), or a combination thereof (Jang claim 20).
Regarding claim 20, Jang discloses the high-elasticity polymer further containing a reinforcement material dispersed therein wherein the reinforcement material is selected from a polymer fiber, a glass fiber, a ceramic fiber, a nano-flake, or a combination thereof (Jang claim 21).
Regarding claim 21, Jang discloses the battery further comprising, in addition to the elastic polymer separator serving as a solid electrolyte, a working electrolyte in ionic contact with an anode active material and/or a cathode active material wherein said working electrolyte is selected from an organic liquid electrolyte, ionic liquid electrolyte, polymer gel electrolyte, solid polymer electrolyte identical to or different than the high- elasticity polymer in composition or structure, inorganic solid electrolyte, or a quasi-solid electrolyte having a sodium salt dissolved in an organic solvent or ionic liquid with a sodium salt concentration higher than 2.0 M, or a combination thereof claims (Jang claim 22).
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Objections
The objections to claims 12 and 17 due to informalities are overcome by applicant’s amendments to claims 12 and 17 in the response received on August 19, 2025. The objections to claims 12 and 17 are withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 112
Regarding claim 26, applicant recites that claim 26 “is interpreted as meaning the compound, element, or chemical being intercalated remain in the final structure of the invention”. However, this explanation does not cure the indefiniteness of the claim due to the scope of the final structure being unclear. It is unclear what exactly is intercalated and remains in the final structure of the invention and it does not appear that the instant specification provides further details regarding the intercalation process and resulting structure. The rejection of claim 26 under U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained.
The following rejections under 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 are overcome by applicant’s amendments to the claims in the response received on August 19, 2025 and are withdrawn:
claims 6-8, insufficient antecedent basis
claim 10, clarity
claim 13, insufficient antecedent basis
claim 15, insufficient antecedent basis
claim 18, insufficient antecedent basis
claims 21 and 28-29, insufficient antecedent basis
claim 22, broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation
claim 23, clarity
claim 29, insufficient antecedent basis
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 103
The rejections of claims 1, 4-7, 10-12, 16, 21, 28-29, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Zheng are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response received August 19, 2025.
The rejections of claims 14-15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Zheng and in further view of Abe are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response received August 19, 2025.
The rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Zheng and in further view of Gond is withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response received August 19, 2025.
The rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Zheng and in further view of Wang is withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response received August 19, 2025.
The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Zheng and in further view of Gao is withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response received August 19, 2025.
The rejections of claims 2-3 and 22-23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Zheng and in further view of Zhamu are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response received August 19, 2025.
The rejections of claims 24-27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Zheng and in further view of Zhamu and Cai are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response received August 19, 2025.
The rejection of claims 30 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Zheng and in further view of Xiang are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response received August 19, 2025.
The rejections of claims 1, 4, 6-11, 13, 21, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeSimone are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response received August 19, 2025.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Response – Double Patenting
The provisional rejections of claims 1-6 and 9-21 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 9-13, 15-19, and 20-22 of copending Application No. 17/649377 (reference application) are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response received August 19, 2025.
The rejections of claims 1-4, 9, and 21 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 15, 19, and 22 of U.S. Patent No. US11677101B2 (He) in view of Zheng are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response received August 19, 2025.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lv (Lv, P. et al. Flexible solid electrolyte based on UV cured polyurethane acrylate/succinonitrile-lithium salt composite compatibilized by tetrahydrofuran. Composites Part B. 120, 35-41 (2017)): appears to disclose an electrolyte comprising polyurethane acrylate and succinonitrile (abstract).
Santhosh (Santhosh, P. et al. Preparation and properties of new cross-linked polyurethan acrylate electrolytes for lithium batteries. Journal of Power Sources. 160, 609-620 (2006)): appears to disclose a cross-linked polyurethane acrylate electrolyte for lithium batteries (abstract, title).
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 S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789 /MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights