DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 64, 65, 67, 68, & 70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka (US20190386343) in view of Di Palma (US20060174938) further in view of Cotton (US20180131041).
Regarding Claim 64, Otsuka discloses an electrochemical device (nonaqueous secondary battery, [002]) comprising:
An anode; a cathode; and an electrolyte composition disposed between the anode and the cathode ([0015]).
The examiner notes that the instant specifications list cellulose as an example of a biodegradable polymer that is radiatively curable prior to being crosslinked.
Otsuka discloses wherein the electrolyte is a porous layer ([0015]), that contains an organic filler ([0036]) that can be composed of cellulose ([0036]). Otsuka further discloses wherein the organic filler is preferably crosslinked ([0036]). However, Otsuka does not directly disclose wherein the electrolyte composition comprises a crosslinked, biodegradable polymeric material that is radiatively curable prior to being crosslinked.
Cotton discloses a polymer electrolyte that includes cellulose ([001]). Cotton further discloses wherein the cellulose can be grafted with cyclic alkyl, or aryl or ether ([0026]). Cotton teaches that this structure provides improved ion conductivity ([0035]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Otsuka with the teachings of Cotton to have wherein the electrolyte composition comprises a crosslinked, biodegradable polymeric material that is radiatively curable prior to being crosslinked. This modification would yield the expected result of improved ion conducvity.
Otsuka does not directly disclose wherein the electrolyte composition comprises a hydrogel, wherein the hydrogel comprises water and the crosslinked, biodegradable polymeric material.
However, Otsuka further discloses wherein the biodegradable polymer can be cellulose ([0036]). Otsuka further discloses wherein cellulose can be used as a water-soluble polymer ([0036]). Otsuka further discloses wherein the water-soluble polymer is mixed with water ([0041]). Otsuka further discloses wherein the electrolyte utilizes an electrolyte solution ([0045]).
Di Palma discloses a water-based gel electrolyte ([0027]). Di Palma further discloses wherein the water-based electrolyte gel is formed by mixing a hydrophilic polymer and an electrolyte solution ([0038]).
Thus, it is the examiner’s opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a “electrolyte composition comprises a hydrogel” can be any gel structure formed by mixing a hydrophilic polymer and an electrolyte solution.
Therefore, since Otsuka discloses the mixing of cellulose, a hydrophilic polymer, and an electrolyte solvent, it is the examiner’s position that Otsuka discloses a hydrogel comprising water and the crosslinked, biodegradable polymeric material.
Regarding Claim 65, Otsuka in view of Di Palma discloses the limitations as set forth above. Otsuka further discloses wherein the wherein the biodegradable polymeric material prior to being crosslinked comprises a radiatively curable functional group comprising one or more of an acrylate, a vinyl ether, an allyl ether, an alkene, a thiol or combinations thereof (organic filler can be cellulose either, [0049], cellulose fiber can be CMC, HEC, ethyl cellulose, [0050]).
Regarding Claim 67, Otsuka in view of Di Palma discloses the limitations as set forth above. Otsuka further discloses one or more biodegradable substrates (cellulose can be used as biodegradable substrate, [0036]).
Regarding Claim 68, Otsuka in view of Di Palma discloses the limitations as set forth above. Otsuka further discloses wherein the biodegradable substrate is cellulose ([0036]).
Regarding Claim 70, Otsuka in view of Di Palma discloses the limitations as set forth above. Otsuka further discloses wherein the anode comprises Lithium, carbon, or Mg alloys ([0121]); and the cathode comprises Fe MnO2 ([0112]).
Claim(s) 66 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka (US20190386343) in view of Di Palma (US20060174938) further in view of Mikhaylik (US20120052397).
Regarding Claim 66, Otsuka in view of Di Palma discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Otsuka does not directly disclose the use of a photoinitiator.
Mikhaylik discloses a polymer electrolyte that can be formed of organic fillers including cellulose ([0177]). Mikhaylik further discloses the use of a photoinitiator ([0227]). Mikhaylik teaches that the photoinitator improved the cross-linking reaction ([0227]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Otsuka with the teachings of Mikhaylik to have a photoinitiator. This modification would yield the expected result of improved cross-linking reactions.
Claim(s) 71 - 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka (US20190386343) in view of Di Palma (US20060174938) further in view of Miyazaki (US20130089781).
Regarding Claim 71 & 73, Otsuka in view of Di Palma discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Otsuka does not directly disclose wherein the anode comprises a first biodegradable binder and the cathode comprises a second biodegradable binder, wherein the first or second biodegradable binder comprises one or more of chitosan, PLGA, CAB, PHB, or combinations thereof.
Miyazaki discloses a positive electrode active material and negative electrode active material that can contain an organic binder ([0029]). Miyazaki further discloses wherein the organic binder can be chitosan ([0029]). Miyazaki teaches that this structure prevents short-circuits ([0019]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Otsuka with the teachings of Miyazaki to have wherein the anode comprises a first biodegradable binder and the cathode comprises a second biodegradable binder, wherein the first or second biodegradable binder comprises one or more of chitosan, PLGA, CAB, PHB, or combinations thereof. This modified structure would yield the expected result of reducing short-circuits.
Regarding Claim 72, Otsuka in view of Di Palma discloses the limitations as set forth above. Otsuka further discloses wherein the cathode and the anode are disposed in a stacked geometry (electrodes are laminated in order, [0015])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments in view of their arguments, see Claims, filed November 25th, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 66 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Otsuka in view of Di Palma further in view of Cotton under 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANKITH R SRIPATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANKITH R SRIPATHI/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights