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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed September 12th 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-13 remain pending in the application. Claims 5-13 remain withdrawn. Claims 15-27 were added by the Applicant. The amendments to the claims have overcome some of the previous 112(b) rejections, however some rejections remain as outlined below. The 103 rejections of Claims 1-4 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made over Jin et al. US 2016/0211548 A1 in view of Yuan et al. US 2014/050990 A1. New rejections follow.
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.
Claims 1-4 & 15 are 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 1 recites “a monomer material…which consists essentially of, or consists of”, which is a broad recitation followed by a narrower recitation within the same claim. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In this instance, it is not clear whether the claim is limited to the monomer material “consisting essentially of” or specifically to the monomer material “consisting of”. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner notes that the broader range (in this case, “consisting essentially of”) was examined.
Claims 2-4 and 15-27 are also indefinite as they depend from claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “a polymer electrolyte precursor composition…which consists essentially of, or consists of”, which is a broad recitation followed by a narrower recitation within the same claim. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In this instance, it is not clear whether the claim is limited to the polymer precursor “consisting essentially of” or specifically to the polymer precursor “consisting of”. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner notes that the broader range (in this case, “consisting essentially of”) was examined.
Claim 3 recites “a polymer electrolyte precursor composition…which consists essentially of, or consists of”, which is a broad recitation followed by a narrower recitation within the same claim. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In this instance, it is not clear whether the claim is limited to the polymer precursor “consists essentially of” or specifically to the polymer precursor “consisting of”. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner notes that the broader range (in this case, “consists essentially of”) was examined.
Claim 15 recites “wherein R represents methyl, -CH2OH, or ethyl”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to which “R” Applicant is referring. Examiner notes that Claim 15 was interpreted to be referring to the “R” for formula (II) based on the Markush grouping. 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.
Claims 1-2 & 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. US 2016/0211548 A1 in further view of Yuan et al. US 2014/050990 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Jin discloses a composition for preparing a gel electrolyte consisting essentially of [Abstract, 0006-0009]:
A compound of Formula (1):
PNG
media_image1.png
581
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jin Formula (1)
A non-aqueous solvent
A lithium salt
An additive [0031]
Jin discloses that the compound of Formula (1) can be ethoxylated trimethylolpropane triacrylate [0023], which has the structure of the second monomer represented by formula (II) as recited in Claim 1, where “a”, “b”, and “c” are all 1 and “R” is an ethyl group.
Jin discloses that the additive in the composition of the gel electrolyte can be vinyl ethylene carbonate [0033], which has a structure of the first monomer represented by formula (I) as recited in Claim 1, where “m” is 0 and “R” is H.
Jin discloses that the monomer material is the precursor composition that forms a gel electrolyte through in-situ polymerization [Abstract].
Although Jin does not specifically teach an example including vinyl ethylene carbonate as an additive used in a monomer material meeting the limitations set forth in the claim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add vinyl ethylene carbonate to the monomer material as disclosed by Jin based on the direct suggestion of its use by Jin.
In the examples, Jin discloses that all components are added into a liquid electrolyte solution to form the composition of the gel electrolyte [0050], wherein the liquid electrolyte comprises the lithium salt and organic solvent [0047]. Jin is silent as to the specific order of mixing, more specifically as to whether or not the compound of formula (1) and the additive are mixed prior to addition to the liquid electrolyte.
Yuan discloses a gel electrolyte composition that is obtained by mixing a part A and a part B [0007]. Yuan discloses that part A comprises a non-aqueous solvent that includes a lithium salt and an initiator [0007]. Yuan discloses that part B consists essentially of a mixture of monomers and a coupling agent [0007], more specifically Yuan discloses that the monomers added in part B are a polyethylene glycol monomer and an ester monomer [0011-0013]. Yuan discloses that part A and part B are mixed separately prior to combination to obtain two separate mixtures, then combined to obtain a gel electrolyte [Example 1 0028]. Thus, Yuan discloses a monomer material (part B).
Yuan discloses that preparing a gel electrolyte in this way creates a stable electrolyte [0028].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use the suggested sequence of preparation steps as disclosed by Yuan in the preparation of the electrolyte of Jin to produce a stable electrolyte. Thus, modified Jin would create a monomer material for preparing a polymer (gel) electrolyte precursor composition capable to form an in-situ polymerized polymer electrolyte consisting essentially of a first monomer (vinyl ethylene carbonate additive) and a second monomer (ethoxylated trimethylolpropane triacrylate).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Jin discloses a polymer electrolyte precursor raw material (composition for preparing a gel electrolyte) [Abstract] consisting essentially of the monomer material, as mentioned with regards to Claim 1, and further comprising an initiator [0028]. Jin discloses that the initiator can be lauroyl peroxide, for example [0028], which is included in the list of suggested free radical initiators as mentioned in the instant specification [Page 8 Paragraph 5]. Thus, Jin discloses that the composition comprises a free radical initiator. Further, Jin specifically discloses that the electrolyte is obtained by in-situ polymerization of the composition, thus Jin discloses that the polymer electrolyte precursor raw material is capable of forming an in-situ polymerized polymer electrolyte.
Regarding Claim 15, as best understood by the examiner, as mentioned with regards to Claim 1 above, Jin discloses that the compound of Formula (1) can be ethoxylated trimethylolpropane triacrylate [0023], thus Jin discloses that R is ethyl.
PNG
media_image2.png
296
415
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Structure of ethoxylated trimethylolpropane triacrylate
Regarding Claim 16, as mentioned with regards to Claim 1 above, Jin discloses that the compound of Formula (1) can be ethoxylated trimethylolpropane triacrylate [0023], thus Jin discloses that “a”, “b”, and “c” are all 1 which results in “a+b+c” = 3, which falls within the claimed range. In regards to the value of “a+b+c”, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2131.03 I. In the case where the prior art “discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim”. UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Accordingly, the value disclosed in Jin anticipates the claimed range set forth in Claim 16. See MPEP 2131.03 I.
PNG
media_image3.png
240
514
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Structure of ethoxylated trimethylolpropane triacrylate
Regarding Claims 17 & 18, Jin discloses that the first monomer (additive) is contained in an amount of 0.1-10wt% based on the total weight of the composition [0033], and the second monomer (compound) is contained in an amount of 0.1-8wt% based on the total weight of the composition [0022]. Thus, Jin discloses, within the disclosed ranges, that the first monomer and the second monomer can be contained in a mass ratio of 10:0.1-0.1:8, which includes the entirety of the claimed ranges in Claims 17 & 18. In regards to the mass ratio, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Jin because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding Claim 19, as mentioned with regards to Claim 1, Jin discloses that the formula (I) (additive) is represented vinyl ethylene carbonate [0033].
Regarding Claim 20, as mentioned with regards to Claim 1, Jin discloses that the formula (II) (compound of Formula (1) of Jin) is represented by ethoxylated trimethylolpropane triacrylate [0023], which is the same as trimethylolpropane ethoxylate triacrylate.
Claims 3-4 & 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin and Yuan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wei et al. CN 109802174A.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Jin discloses a polymer electrolyte precursor raw material (composition for preparing a gel electrolyte) [Abstract] consisting essentially of the monomer material, as mentioned with regards to Claim 1, and further consisting essentially of an initiator [0028]. Jin discloses that the initiator can be lauroyl peroxide, for example [0028], which is included in the list of suggested free radical initiators as mentioned in the instant specification [Page 8 Paragraph 5]. Thus, Jin discloses that the composition comprises a free radical initiator. Jin specifically discloses that the electrolyte is obtained by in-situ polymerization of the composition, thus Jin discloses that the polymer electrolyte precursor raw material is capable of forming an in-situ polymerized polymer electrolyte. Further, Jin discloses that the composition consists essentially of a lithium salt [0030], and a solvent selected from a group of carbonate compounds [0029], thus Jin discloses an organic solvent.
Jin fails to disclose that the weight ratio of monomer material to organic solvent is within the claimed range.
Wei discloses a polymer electrolyte for a lithium ion battery [Abstract] that comprises ethylene carbonate, an initiator, a lithium salt, and an organic solvent [Page 2 Lines 15-17], similar to that of Jin. Wei further discloses that the organic solvent is 1-50mass% of the composition with the vinyl ethylene carbonate is 30-80mass% of the composition [Page 2 Lines 19-22]. Thus, Wei discloses that the weight ratio of monomer material to organic solvent is 1:0.013-1:1.7, which includes the entirety of the claimed range. In regards to the weight ratio of the monomer material to the organic solvent, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Wei because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Wei discloses that a polymer electrolyte with this composition inhibits lithium dendrite growth, improves compatibility at the interface, has long cycle performance at room temperature, and has good flexibility which would be advantageous in wearable device applications [Page 2 Lines 3-6]. Wei additionally discloses that the preparation process of this electrolyte is simple, easy to control and has excellent mechanical properties [Page 2 Lines 1-2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the organic solvent in the suggested weight ratio of Wei in the composition of Jin to provide a polymer electrolyte that is easy to prepare and has excellent mechanical properties, with inhibited lithium dendrite growth, improved interface compatibility and long cycle performance, and good flexibility in wide range of applications.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Jin discloses, with the modification of Wei above with regards to Claim 3, that the amount of monomer material is 30-80mass% based on the total weight of the composition, which falls within the claimed range. In regards to the amount of the monomer material, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by modified Jin because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding Claim 22, Jin discloses that the organic solvent is selected from a group of carbonate compounds [0029], thus Jin discloses an carbonate solvent.
Regarding Claim 23, Jin discloses that the organic solvent is ethylene carbonate or dimethyl carbonate or a mixture [0029].
Regarding Claims 24 & 25, as mentioned with regards to Claim 3 above, modified Jin discloses that the weight ratio of the monomer material to the organic solvent is from 1:0.013-1:1.7, which includes the entirety of the claimed ranges of Claims 24 & 25. In regards to the weight ratio of the monomer material to the organic solvent, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by modified Jin because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding Claims 26 & 27, as mentioned with regards to Claim 4 above, modified Jin discloses that the amount of monomer material is 30-80mass% based on the total weight of the composition, which falls within the claimed ranges of Claims 26 and 27. In regards to the amount of the monomer material, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by modified Jin because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin, Yuan, and Wei as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. US 2016/0261000 A1.
Regarding Claim 21, Jin discloses that the lithium salt is one of lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6), among others [0030].
Jin fails to specifically disclose that the lithium salt is lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl) imide.
Zhang discloses a an electrolyte for a battery [0006], wherein the electrolyte is a polymer electrolyte [0038] comprising a lithium salt and an organic solvent [0039], similar to Jin. Zhang discloses discloses that the lithium salt can be lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl) imide (LiFSI) [0011].
Zhang discloses in Examples 1-4 of their disclosure that the selected lithium salt is lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl) imide (LiFSI) [0044-0047]. Zhang discloses that for Examples 5 & 6, LiFSI was compared to another lithium salt LiPF6 [0048-0049], and the LiFSI containing electrolyte performed higher in terms of Coulombic efficiency of lithium deposition [0048-0049]. Additionally, in Example 7, Zhang discloses using LiFSI as the lithium salt and discloses that the electrolyte exhibited stability of lithium deposition/stripping throughout cycling [0050]. Further, Zhang discloses that a battery comprising this lithium salt in the electrolyte has improved energy density and minimal loss of Li ions for battery operation [0051].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to substitute one known lithium salt, i.e. lithium hexafluorophosphate of Jin, for another lithium salt, i.e. lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl) imide of Zhang, with reasonable expectation of success. The simple substitution of one lithium salt for another to obtain predictable results is not patentable. See KSR International Co v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); MPEP 2143 B.
In addition, by teaching the two alternative lithium salts, Zhang demonstrates that these are known equivalents in the art, and the selection of either lithium salt would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.06.
Furthermore, it would have obvious to selection lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl) imide as a substitution for lithium hexafluorophosphate as suggested by the Examples and results of Zhang for the benefit of improved energy density, increased Coulombic efficiency, and stability of the electrolyte, as well as minimal loss of Li ions in battery operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Jin does not teach or suggest the monomer material that consists essentially of the first and second monomers as recited in Claim 1, more specifically that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the combination of first and second monomers from Jin’s disclosure to arrive at the claimed material. Examiner respectfully points out that Jin lists the claimed second monomer (ethoxylated trimethylpropane triacrylate) within a finite list of five compounds [0023]. Examiner additionally points out that Jin lists the claimed first monomer (vinyl ethylene carbonate) within a finite list of thirty-six additives. Thus, it would have been reasonably obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the claimed materials within those grouping and thus constitutes a prima facia case of obviousness. Further, Jin discloses that the additive can be included in the composition for the advantages of protection, solid electrolyte interface former, fire-retardant, stabilization, Li deposition improvement, corrosion inhibition, improved wetting, or improved viscosity [0031]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include one of the additives as suggested by Jin in the electrolyte composition for one or more of the listed benefits. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the invention of the present disclosure achieves unexpected technical effects. Examiner respectfully points out that the present disclosure shows experimental examples of the disclosed invention compared to liquid electrolytes comprising a lithium salt and a solvent, which is not considered to be the closest prior art. Thus, the allegation of unexpected technical effects is not persuasive because the invention is not compared to the closest prior art, such as that of Jin as stated above, which discloses a gel electrolyte that comprises a monomer material in a lithium salt solution. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Wei discloses a material for a polymer electrolyte that is different from the claimed material. Examiner respectfully points out that this argument is irrelevant and immaterial to what Wei was relied upon to teach. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA E GOULD whose telephone number is (571)270-1088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached on (571) 272-1307. 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.
/A.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 5 December 2025