DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A) Applicant’s argument that the examples show the polymers comprising crosslinkable groups demonstrate a higher ionic conductivity than a non-crosslinkable polymer is not persuasive. Evidence of unexpected properties should be a comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims (MPEP 716.02(b) III). In this case, the closest prior art, Deschamps et al., teaches functionalizing the terminal groups with acrylate functions, which are crosslinkable (para. 67). Therefore, comparison to a non-crosslinkable polymer is not germane.
B) Applicant’s argument that Deschamps et al. does not suggest an ionic polymer comprising at least one repeating unit resulting from the reaction between at least one compound of formula 1 and a compound of formula 2 is not persuasive. First, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The combination of references together teach the units of formula 1 and formula 2. Secondly, applicants suggest that because Deschamps et al. is a block copolymer having repeating units of monomers of formula 1 next to a block of similar monomers of formula 2, the limitation that the repeating unit resulting from the reaction between formula 1 and formula 2 is not met. However, Deschamps et al. teaches a BAB type triblock copolymer (para. 11), where the A block is of formula 1 (para. 12) and the B block is a similar monomer to formula 2 (para. 16). Therefore, the reaction product between formula 1 and a similar compound to formula 2 occurs in between the B block and the A block. Further, it is a repeating unit because the reaction product occurs again between the A block and the second B block.
C) Applicant’s argument that Deschamps et al. does not teach any chemical or structural advantages is not persuasive as the prior art need not recognize all latent properties of the polymer. The prior art renders obvious the product itself.
D) Applicant’s argument that Argyropoulos et al. uses a different chemistry than Deschamps et al. is not persuasive. Argyropoulos et al. provides a reason to use the monomer of formula 2, namely that the bond structure which results from this monomer may confer considerable backbone flexibility with a consequent lowering of inherent viscosity values (Argyropoulos et al. bottom of pg. 3081-top of pg. 3082). A person having ordinary skill in the art of polymer chemistry would have the knowledge to perform a condensation reaction rather than a radical polymerization reaction with the teaching of the advantage of the monomer from Argyropoulos et al.
E) Applicant’s argument that Argyropoulos et al. does not teach at least one crosslinkable functional group is not persuasive as this feature is taught by Deschamps et al. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
F) In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation statement comes from Argyropoulos et al., which teaches the structure of formula 2 leads to considerable backbone flexibility with a consequent lowering of inherent viscosity values.
G) Applicant’s argument that the examiner equates the lithium polystyrene sulfonyl(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide of Deschamps et al. with the repeating unit of the ionic polymer claimed while the imidobis(sulfurylchloride) of Argyropoulos et al. is equated to a monomer is not persuasive. Deschamps et al. describes two units, the monomers of blocks A and B. The monomer of block A is the claimed formula 1 and the monomer of block B is similar to the claimed formula 2. The reaction product occurs between these blocks. Further, Argyropoulos et al. teaches the reaction product of a monomer similar to formula 1 with the monomer of formula 2. In both cases as well as in the claims, analogous compounds of formula 1 and formula 2 are reacted together/polymerized to produce a reaction product/polymer.
H) Applicant’s argument that Anh does not teach all of the limitations of claim 217 is not persuasive. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 6, 12, 22, 29, 56, and 218-221 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deschamps et al. (US 2022/0029197) in view of Argyropoulos et al. “Argyropoulos, D. and Lenk, R.S. (1981), Condensation products from imidobis(sulfuryl chloride). J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 26: 3073-3084.”
Regarding claims 1 and 218-220: Deschamps et al. teaches an ionic polymer (para. 9) containing a repeating unit of a poly(alkyleneoxide) and a lithium polystyrene-sulfonyl(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide (para. 11). The poly(alkylene oxide) can be poly(propylene oxide) (para. 13), which is a branched poly(C3 alkyloxy)C3alkylene having hydroxyl groups for X1 and X2. Deschamps et al. also teaches functionalizing the terminal groups with acrylate functions (para. 67), which are crosslinkable.
Deschamps et al. does not teach the second monomer is of claimed formula 2. However, Argyropoulos et al. a similar polymer (pg. 3079) made with an ion (pg. 3081) of imidobis(sulfuryl chloride) (abstract), which can be a lithium ion (pg. 3073). Therefore, the X3 and X4 moieties are both chlorine atoms and Mn+ is Li+. Deschamps et al. and Argyropoulos et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely ionic polymers made with sulfonyl imide monomers. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the monomer of Argyropoulos et al. in the polymer of Deschamps et al. and would have been motivated to do so since Argyropoulos et al. teaches the bond structure which results from this monomer may confer considerable backbone flexibility with a consequent lowering of inherent viscosity values (bottom of pg. 3081-top of pg. 3082).
Regarding claim 6: Deschamps et al. teaches the monomer can be ethylene glycol (para. 13), which is an alkane diol.
Regarding claim 12: Deschamps et al. teaches the monomer can be ethylene glycol (para. 13), which is a compound of formula 3 where X1 and X2 are hydroxyl, R1 and R2 are hydrogen and l is 2.
Regarding claim 22: The polymer of the combination of references set forth above would have a repeating structure of formula 8(a), where Mn+ would be Li, X5 and X6 would be oxygen, and A would be C2 alkylene when ethylene glycol was used. Further, Deschamps et al. teaches the copolymer is a BAB triblock copolymer (para. 11), where the B block has a number average molecular weight of 1.6-3.8 kDa (para. 20), and the A has a number average molecular weight of 20 kDa (para. 23), meaning the overall polymer has a number average molecular weight of 23,200-27,600 g/mol, which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 29: The polymer of the combination would have the repeating structure of formula 9 where Mn+ would be Li, X5 and X6 would be oxygen, R1 and R2 are hydrogen and l is 2. Further, Deschamps et al. teaches the copolymer is a BAB triblock copolymer (para. 11), where the B block has a number average molecular weight of 1.6-3.8 kDa (para. 20), and the A has a number average molecular weight of 20 kDa (para. 23), meaning the overall polymer has a number average molecular weight of 23,200-27,600 g/mol, which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 56: The polymer of the combination would have the repeating structure of claimed formula 13. Further, Deschamps et al. teaches the copolymer is a BAB triblock copolymer (para. 11), where the B block has a number average molecular weight of 1.6-3.8 kDa (para. 20), and the A has a number average molecular weight of 20 kDa (para. 23), meaning the overall polymer has a number average molecular weight of 23,200-27,600 g/mol, which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 221: Deschamps et al. teaches the structure of formula 4(a) (para. 51) where m = the disclosed y’, and is 10-91, which overlaps the claimed range.
Claim 217 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deschamps et al. (US 2022/0029197) in view of Argyropoulos et al. “Argyropoulos, D. and Lenk, R.S. (1981), Condensation products from imidobis(sulfuryl chloride). J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 26: 3073-3084” as applied to claim 1 set forth above and in view of Ahn et al. (US 2022/0037695).
Regarding claim 217: Deschamps et al. teaches the basic claimed polymer as set forth above. Not disclosed are the specific functional groups claimed. However, Ahn et al. teaches a similar polymer electrolyte having methyl acrylate functional groups (formula 1). Deschamps et al. and Ahn et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely ionic polymers. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the methyl acrylate groups of Ahn et al. with the polymer of Deschamps et al. and would have been motivated to do so since Ahn et al. teaches the use of the acrylate groups lead to high ionic conductivity at room temperature, excellent mechanical properties and oxidation stability (para. 37).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megan McCulley whose telephone number is (571)270-3292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/MEGAN MCCULLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights