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 .
Examiner’s Comments
Applicants’ response filed on 1/14/2026 has been fully considered. Claim 6 is cancelled, claims 12-15 are withdrawn and claims 1-5 and 7-15 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/2/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pras et al (US 2018/0233751 A1) in view of Iwase (US 2015/0099158 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pras discloses an electrochemical device (electrochemical device comprising a secondary battery; paragraphs [0020] and [0165]) comprising
a) a positive electrode (paragraph [0166]),
b) a negative electrode (paragraph [0167]),
c) a separator (a membrane between the positive electrode and the negative electrode; paragraph [0168]), wherein the separator is a porous polymeric material (the membrane comprising an organic material comprising polymers and containing pores; paragraphs [0171] and [0173]), and
d) a liquid electrolyte (at least one medium; paragraph [0175]),
wherein at least one of said positive electrode and said negative electrode is a gelled electrode (at least one of the positive electrode and the negative electrode is the electrode of the invention; paragraph [0169]) comprising an electronic conductive substrate (metal substrate; paragraph [0053]) and directly adhered onto the electronic conductive substrate (directly adhered onto said metal substrate; paragraph [0054]), at least one layer of a gelled electrode-forming composition (at least one layer consisting of a composition; paragraph [0054]),
wherein the d) liquid electrolyte comprises at least one organic carbonate and/or at least one ionic liquid (paragraphs [0140] and [0175]), and at least one metal salt (paragraph [0133]), and
wherein the gelled electrode composition comprises a liquid medium (I) comprising at least one organic carbonate and/or at least one ionic liquid ((paragraph [0140]).
Pras does not disclose the electrochemical device comprising the electrochemical device comprising the porous polymeric material being selected from the group consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene and combinations thereof.
However, Iwase discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a positive electrode sheet (Fig. 5 #10; paragraph [0033]), a negative electrode sheet (Fig. 5 #20; paragraph [0056]), a separator sheet disposed between the positive electrode sheet and the negative electrode sheet (Fig. 5 #40; paragraph [0039]) and a non-aqueous electrolyte (paragraph [0070]); wherein the separator sheet comprises a porous heat resistance layer (Fig. 5 #30A; paragraph [0039]) disposed on a separator substrate (Fig. 5 #42; paragraph [0039]) and wherein the separator comprises a porous polymeric material being selected from the group consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene (the separator substrate comprising a porous resin sheet comprising polyethylene or polypropylene; paragraph [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrochemical device of Pras to substitute the membrane of Pras for the separator substrate comprising a porous resin sheet comprising polyethylene or polypropylene of Iwase because having the required material for a separator substrate provides a material that can insulate the positive electrode active material layer from the negative electrode active material layer and having a function of holding the non-aqueous electrolyte and providing the shut-down function at a proper timing (paragraph [0040] of Iwase).
Regarding claim 2, Pras and Iwase disclose the electrochemical device of claim 1 as noted above and Pras discloses the electrochemical device comprising the gelled electrode-forming composition (composition C2; paragraph [0054]) further comprises
i) at least one partially fluorinated fluoropolymer (paragraph [0055]) comprising
at least one first recurring unit derived from at least one ethylenically unsaturated fluorinated monomer (recurring units derived from vinylidene fluoride; paragraph [0109]),
and at least one second recurring unit derived from at least one hydrogenated monomer comprising at least one carboxylic group (at least one functional hydrogenated monomer comprising at least one carboxylic end group; paragraph [0109]);
ii) at least one electro-active compound (paragraph [0063]); and
iii) optionally, at least one conductive additive (at least one conductive compound; paragraph [0066]).
Regarding claim 3, Pras and Iwase disclose the electrochemical device of claim 1 as noted above and Pras discloses the electrochemical device comprising the c) separator (the membrane between the positive electrode and the negative electrode; paragraph [0168]) and a liquid medium (II) (paragraph [0175]) comprising at least one organic carbonate and/or at least one ionic liquid (paragraph [0140]) is placed between the a) positive electrode and the b) negative electrode (the membrane between the positive electrode and the negative electrode; paragraphs [0168] and [0175]), and wherein the d) liquid electrolyte is a mixture of the liquid medium (I) and the liquid medium (II) (at least one medium comprises ethylene carbonate/propylene carbonate with 2% by weight of vinylene carbonate; paragraphs [0233] and [0257]).
Regarding claim 4, Pras and Iwase disclose the electrochemical device of claim 1 as noted above and Pras discloses the electrochemical device comprising the liquid medium (I) and the liquid medium (II) are different (at least one medium comprises ethylene carbonate/propylene carbonate with 2% by weight of vinylene carbonate; paragraphs [0233] and [0257]) and at least one of the liquid medium (I) and the liquid medium (II) additionally comprise at least one metal salt (a salt of LiTFSI; paragraphs [0230] and [0233]).
Regarding claim 5, Pras and Iwase disclose the electrochemical device of claim 1 as noted above and Pras discloses the electrochemical device comprising the thickness of the positive electrode being 250 µm (cathode; paragraph [0255]) and the thickness of the negative electrode being 120 µm (anode; paragraph [0255]).
Regarding claim 7, Pras and Iwase disclose the electrochemical device of claim 2 as noted above and Pras discloses the electrochemical device comprising at least one first recurring unit derived from vinylidene fluoride (paragraph [0109]).
Regarding claim 8, Pras and Iwase disclose the electrochemical device of claim 2 as noted above and Pras discloses the electrochemical device comprising at least one second recurring unit selected from (meth)acrylic monomers of formula 1 wherein each of R1, R2 and R3 equal to or different from each other is independently a hydrogen atom or a C1-C3 (functional hydrogenated monomer; paragraphs [0109] and [0114]).
Regarding claim 9, Pras and Iwase disclose the electrochemical device of claim 2 as noted above and Pras discloses the electrochemical device comprising the partially fluorinated polymer comprising a third recurring unit derived from at least one fluorinated monomer different from vinylidene fluoride (paragraph [0109]).
Regarding claim 10, Pras and Iwase disclose the electrochemical device of claim 2 as noted above and Pras discloses the electrochemical device comprising the cathode comprising LiFePO4 (paragraph [0253]).
Since LiFePO4 is the same as one of Applicant’s preferred materials for the at least one electro-active compound as stated in pg. 21 of Applicant’s Specification, the LiFePO4 would inherently have an areal capacity between 1.0 mAh/cm2 and 9.0 mAh/cm2.
Regarding claim 11, Pras and Iwase disclose the electrochemical device of claim 1 as noted above and Pras discloses the electrochemical device comprising the metal salt being LiTFSI (paragraph [0230]).
LiTFSI is another name for bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide lithium salt and has the formula Li[N(CF3SO2)2] meeting the formula Me[N(CF2SO2)2]n where Me is a metal of Li and n is a valence of 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Pras does not teach a separator where the separator is a porous polymeric material selected form the groups consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene and combinations thereof.
This argument is not persuasive as Pras discloses a membrane comprising an organic material comprising polymers and containing pores, which reads on the claimed the separator is a porous polymeric material (see paragraphs [0171] and [0173] of Pras). Pras does not disclose the material of the separator being selected from polyethylene or polypropylene. However, Iwase discloses a separator substrate comprising a porous resin sheet comprising polyethylene or polypropylene, which reads on the claimed separator being selected from polyethylene or polypropylene (see paragraph [0040] of Iwase).
Applicants argue that one skilled in the art would not be motivated to use a standard separator, which is a porous polymeric material selected from the groups consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene and combinations thereof; in the electrochemical device of Pras because polyethylene and polypropylene are not ionically conductive.
This argument is not persuasive as the membrane of Pras is porous and polymeric and the separator substrate of Iwase is porous and comprises polyethylene or polypropylene. One of ordinary skill in the art would substitute the membrane of Pras for the separator substrate comprising a porous resin sheet comprising polyethylene or polypropylene of Iwase because having the required material for a separator substrate provides a material that can insulate the positive electrode active material layer from the negative electrode active material layer and having a function of holding the non-aqueous electrolyte and providing the shut-down function at a proper timing (paragraph [0040] of Iwase).
Applicants argue that standard separators require liquid electrolytes and Pras teaches that its electrochemical devices are advantageously free from liquid electrolytes.
This argument is not persuasive as the liquid medium in Pras for the membrane is capable of functioning as an electrolyte and the salt of LiTFSI is the same as one of Applicant’s preferred materials for the metal salt
Applicants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine Iwase’s battery having a liquid electrolyte with Pras, who teaches electrochemical devices that are advantageously free from liquid electrolytes.
This argument is not persuasive as one of ordinary skill in the art would substitute the membrane of Pras for the separator substrate comprising a porous resin sheet comprising polyethylene or polypropylene of Iwase because having the required material for a separator substrate provides a material that can insulate the positive electrode active material layer from the negative electrode active material layer and having a function of holding the non-aqueous electrolyte and providing the shut-down function at a proper timing (paragraph [0040] of Iwase). Also, the liquid medium in Pras for the membrane is capable of functioning as an electrolyte and the salt of LiTFSI is the same as one of Applicant’s preferred materials for the metal salt.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)-272-1291. 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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1785