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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/20/2025 and 11/25/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
The Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 10/20/2025, has been entered. Claims 1, 3, and 20 are amended; claims 2, 4-10, 14-15, and 18-19 stand as originally or previously presented; claims 34-38 are new; claims 11-13, 16-17, 21-33 are cancelled; and claims 5-10, 14-15, and 18-20 are withdrawn. Support for the amendments is found in the original filing, and there is no new matter.
Upon considered said amendments and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection has been maintained, and the previous 35 U.S.C.103 rejection set forth in Office Action mailed 05/19/2025 has been withdrawn. Amended and new grounds of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing to newly found art are set forth below as necessitated by the claim amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 36 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“10-4 Siem” in line 2 should be replaced with –10-4 S/cm--.
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.
Claim 3 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “5 mol percent to 95 mol percent” in line 2. It is unclear what the basis for this mol percent is. For purposes of this Office Action, it will be assumed that the basis is the composition of the gel electrolyte, so 100 mol percent represents the total molar composition of the gel electrolyte.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemura (US 20130260207 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Uemura discloses the limitations regarding a gel electrolyte (Uemura, by impregnating the inside of the porous protective layer with an electrolytic solution, the protective layer can be an ionic conductive film, and can be used as a solid electrolyte membrane or a gel electrolyte membrane, [0036]; the Examiner notes that a porous protective layer impregnated with an electrolytic solution corresponds to the claimed gel electrolyte) comprising:
(a) a glycolate gel (Uemura, the battery electrode or separator surface protective agent composition contains a liquid binders which undergo a sol-gel reaction to form a solid inorganic material that includes titanium dioctyloxybis(octyleneglycolate), [0105-0118]);
(b) one or more metal salts, wherein the one or more metal salts are selected from the group consisting of alkali salts (Uemura, an electrolyte used for the battery can be added, which may be lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, or LiTFSI, [0121]);
(c) one or more anions selected from the group consisting of LiTFSI (Uemura, an electrolyte used for the battery can be added, which may be lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, or LiTFSI, [0121]);
(d) one or more polyols (Uemura, the battery electrode or separator surface protective agent composition of one or more embodiments of the present invention can contain a solvent for controlling the fluidity, which may include polyhydric alcohols and derivatives thereof (such as ethylene glycol), [0130]) and
wherein the gel electrolyte is a freeze-dried gel electrolyte (Uemura, the solvent can be dried by freeze drying, [0130]).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Uemura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Uemura discloses the limitations regarding the gel electrolyte (Uemura, by impregnating the inside of the porous protective layer with an electrolytic solution, the protective layer can be an ionic conductive film, and can be used as a solid electrolyte membrane or a gel electrolyte membrane, [0036]) wherein:
the alkali salts are selected from the group consisting of salts of lithium (Uemura, an electrolyte used for the battery can be added, which may be lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, or LiTFSI, [0121]).
Regarding Claim 37, Uemura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Uemura discloses the limitations regarding the gel electrolyte (Uemura, by impregnating the inside of the porous protective layer with an electrolytic solution, the protective layer can be an ionic conductive film, and can be used as a solid electrolyte membrane or a gel electrolyte membrane, [0036]), wherein the gel electrolyte is encapsulated in a porous solid material (Uemura, the battery electrode or separator surface protective agent composition of one or more embodiments of the present invention can further comprise inorganic particles or fillers having an active hydrogen group, [0091]), optionally wherein the porous solid materials is selected from thegroup consisting of a zeolite (Uemura, the inorganic particles in a porous form are preferably used for increasing the specific surface area, which may include various types of zeolite, [0094]).
Regarding Claim 38, Uemura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Uemura discloses the limitations regarding the gel electrolyte (Uemura, by impregnating the inside of the porous protective layer with an electrolytic solution, the protective layer can be an ionic conductive film, and can be used as a solid electrolyte membrane or a gel electrolyte membrane, [0036]), further comprising a porous solid material within the gel electrolyte (Uemura, the inorganic particles in a porous form are preferably used for increasing the specific surface area, which may include various types of zeolite, [0094]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemura (US 20130260207 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Inagaki et al. (US 20060046155 A1, hereinafter Inagaki), as evidenced by Sigma Aldrich (https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/product/aldrich/919977).
Regarding Claim 3, Uemura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Uemura discloses the limitations regarding the gel electrolyte (Uemura, by impregnating the inside of the porous protective layer with an electrolytic solution, the protective layer can be an ionic conductive film, and can be used as a solid electrolyte membrane or a gel electrolyte membrane, [0036]). Uemura is silent regarding the concentration of the one or more salts in the gel electrolyte is at least about 10 mol percent.
Inagaki discloses a gel electrolyte (Inagaki, the nonaqueous electrolyte includes a gelled nonaqueous electrolyte, [0021]) comprising the concentration of the one or more salts (Inagaki, the electrolyte particularly preferably contains an imide lithium salt selected from the group consisting of Li(CF3SO2)2N, [0026]; as evidenced by Sigma Aldrich, the chemical composition of lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide is CF3SO2NLiSO2CF3, or Li(CF3SO2)2N) in the gel electrolyte is 5 mol percent to 95 mol percent (Inagaki, the content of the imide lithium salt is preferably from 2 to 50% by mole based on the total amount of the electrolyte from the standpoint of high temperature cycle capability, [0031]; the disclosed range of 2 to 50% by mole overlaps with the claimed range of 5 mol percent to 95 mol percent).
Inagaki teaches that by having an imide salt in the range from 2 to 50% mole, the high temperature cycle capability is improved.
Inagaki and Uemura are analogous to the current invention as they are directed towards the use of lithium salts in a gel electrolyte.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the lithium salt of Uemura, LiTFSI, in the range of 2 to 50% by mole based on the total amount of the electrolyte, as taught by Inagaki, in order to improve high temperature cycle capability of the electrolyte.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claims 4 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemura (US 20130260207 A1), in view of Smith et al. (“Deep Eutectic Solvents (DESs) and Their Applications”, hereinafter Smith).
Regarding Claim 4, Uemura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Uemura discloses the limitations regarding the gel electrolyte (Uemura, by impregnating the inside of the porous protective layer with an electrolytic solution, the protective layer can be an ionic conductive film, and can be used as a solid electrolyte membrane or a gel electrolyte membrane, [0036]).
Uemura is silent regarding the gel electrolyte is in the form of a homogeneous eutectic mixture.
Smith discloses the limitations regarding a gel electrolyte (Smith, polymer electrolyte, Page 11077, paragraph starting with “DESs have also been investigated…”), wherein the gel electrolyte is in the form of a homogeneous eutectic mixture (Smith, DESs (Deep Eutectic Solvents) found to have the best plasticizing properties was ChCl:urea. ChCl:urea has been used to suppress the crystallinity of corn starch and cellulose acetate in a polymer electrolyte containing lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, LiTFSI, Page 11077, paragraph starting with “DESs have also been investigated…”).
Smith teaches that DESs based on choline chloride are good candidates for starch modification because they interact strongly with the OH groups of the glycosidic units, decreasing chain interactions and hence plasticizing the polymer. They can also wet the surface of individual grains and bind them together (Smith, Page 11077, paragraph starting with “DESs have also been investigated…”).
Uemura and Smith are analogous to the current invention as they are all directed towards a gel electrolyte. In addition, as evidenced by Kurihara, plasticizers are gelling agents used in obtaining gel electrolytes (Kurihara, [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the gel electrolyte of Uemura, which requires a gelling agent, to include the plasticizer, or gelling agent, of Smith that includes ChCl:urea, corn starch, and LiTFSI, in order to plasticize the polymer and bind the polymers together.
Regarding Claim 36, modified Uemura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Uemura discloses the limitations regarding the gel electrolyte (Uemura, by impregnating the inside of the porous protective layer with an electrolytic solution, the protective layer can be an ionic conductive film, and can be used as a solid electrolyte membrane or a gel electrolyte membrane, [0036]), wherein the gel electrolyte has an ionic conductivity of at least about 10-4 S/cm (Smith, the highest ionic conductivity for corn starch was obtained from a sample containing 80 wt % of DES, with a calculated conductivity value of 1.04 × 10−3 S cm−1, Smith, Page 11077, paragraph starting with “DESs have also been investigated…”; the disclosed conductivity value of 1.04 × 10−3 S cm−1 falls within the claimed range of at least about 10-4 Siem).
Claims 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemura (US 20130260207 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and in view of Takahashi et al. (WO 2016132589 A1, hereinafter Takahashi).
Regarding Claim 34, Uemura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Uemura discloses the limitations regarding the gel electrolyte (Uemura, by impregnating the inside of the porous protective layer with an electrolytic solution, the protective layer can be an ionic conductive film, and can be used as a solid electrolyte membrane or a gel electrolyte membrane, [0036]), and the one or more polyols (Uemura, the battery electrode or separator surface protective agent composition of one or more embodiments of the present invention can contain a solvent for controlling the fluidity, which may include polyhydric alcohols and derivatives thereof (such as ethylene glycol), [0130]).
Uemura is silent regarding biomass-derived polyols.
Takahashi discloses a gel electrolyte (Takahashi, an electrolyte layer containing a polymer or a polymer gel electrolyte, Page 21, paragraphing starting with “The lithium secondary battery…”), wherein the one or more polyol are biomass-derived polyols (Takahashi, a compound having two or more active hydrogen groups includes soybean oil polyols, Page 12-13, paragraph starting with “(D) compound having two or more active hydrogen groups…”).
Takahashi teaches that the use of a compound having two or more active hydrogen groups is preferred because it improves the binding property (Takahashi, Page 12-13, paragraph starting with “(D) compound having two or more active hydrogen groups…”).
Uemura and Takahashi are analogous to the current invention as they are all directed towards a gel electrolyte comprising of one or more polyols.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the polyol of Uemura with the soybean oil polyols, as taught by Takahashi, in order to improve the binding properties of the electrolyte.
Regarding Claim 35, modified Uemura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Uemura discloses the limitations regarding the gel electrolyte (Uemura, by impregnating the inside of the porous protective layer with an electrolytic solution, the protective layer can be an ionic conductive film, and can be used as a solid electrolyte membrane or a gel electrolyte membrane, [0036]), wherein the one or more biomass-derived polyols or the one or more biomass-derived compounds are derived from plant biomass that are generated from an agricultural product, optionally an agricultural product selected from the group consisting of and soybean straw (Takahashi, a compound having two or more active hydrogen groups includes soybean oil polyols, Page 12-13, paragraph starting with “(D) compound having two or more active hydrogen groups…”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 10-11, filed 10/20/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Uemura (US 20130260207 A1), as noted above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:50 - 7:50 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, NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/K.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752