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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2 are amended. Claims 5-7 are newly added. Claims 1-7 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudak (US 2020/0287240 A1).
Regarding claims 1-5, Hudak teaches a lithium ion secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a polymer electrolyte ([0004]-[0007] & [0102]-[0106]) containing a lithium salt such as LiFSI, LiTFSI, LiPF6, LiSO4, LiNO3 and LiClO4 ([0107]-[0115]); an ionic liquid containing a bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide anion similarly to the anion of the lithium salt ([0116]-[0118]); and a polymer containing a difunctional or high-valent polyether acrylate such as one formed from an ethoxylate pentaerythritol tetraacrylate monomer ([0129]-[0131], [0137] & [0155]), wherein a weight ratio of the polymer to the ionic liquid is about 1:1 to about 1:4 which corresponds to a content of the polymer being 20% by mass or more and 50% by mass or less based on the sum of the content of the ionic liquid and the content of the polymer ([0143], [0368] & [0380]); and wherein the content of the lithium salt is 0.5% to 30% by weight of the total content of the lithium salt, the ionic liquid and the polymer with some embodiments using about 20 wt% to 30 wt% of the lithium salt ([0115]). Assuming a 100 g basis for the total content of the lithium salt, the ionic liquid and the polymer, the content of the lithium salt based on the total content of the ionic liquid and the polymer can be calculated using the known molar mass of the lithium salt based on 20 wt% to 30 wt% lithium salt in the polymer electrolyte (i.e 20 g to 30 g based on 100 g total weight of the polymer electrolyte). Thus, when the lithium salt is LiSO4 (103 g/mol), LiNO3 (68.9 g/mol) or LiClO4 (106.4 g/mol), the corresponding content of the lithium salt in moles based on the total weight of the ionic liquid and the polymer would range from [(20 g Lithium Salt / Molar Mass of Lithium salt)]/(80*10-3 Kg of ionic liquid and polymer) to [(30 g Lithium Salt / Molar Mass of Lithium salt)]/(70*10-3 Kg of ionic liquid and polymer). Accordingly, for each of LiSO4, LiNO3 and LiClO4 used as the lithium salt, the content of the lithium salt based on a sum of a content of the ionic liquid and the polymer would overlap with the presently claimed ranges of 2.5 mol/Kg to 6 mol/Kg (claim 1); 2.5 mol/Kg to 4 mol/Kg (claim 2); and 2.5 mol/Kg to 5 mol/Kg (claim 5) when the lithium salt makes up 20 wt% to 30 wt% of the polymer electrolyte.
Regarding claims 6-7, Hudak teaches the polymer being a cured product of a polyacrylate having two or more acryloyl groups such as ethoxylate pentaerythritol tetraacrylate ([0106], [0137] & [0146]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant’s arguments that Hudak does not fairly teach or suggest the subject matter of claim 1, the examiner respectfully disagree. As noted in the above updated rejection of claim 1, Hudak discloses a polymer electrolyte comprising a lithium salt selected from the group of LiFSI, LiTFSI, LiPF6, LiSO4, LiNO3 and LiClO4 ([0107]-[0115]). While the exemplary embodiments of Hudak employ LiFSI or LiTFSI as the lithium salt, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute LiFSI and LiTFSI with another suitable lithium salt such as LiSO4, LiNO3 and LiClO4. Accordingly, for a content of 20 wt% to 30 wt% of the lithium salt in the polymer electrolyte used in some embodiments of Hudak ([0115]) and when any one of LiSO4, LiNO3 and LiClO4 are used as the lithium salt ([0114]), the corresponding content of the lithium salt based on a sum of a content of the ionic liquid and the polymer would overlap with the presently claimed ranges of 2.5 mol/Kg to 6 mol/Kg; 2.5 mol/Kg to 4 mol/Kg; and 2.5 mol/Kg to 5 mol/Kg recited in respective claims 1, 2 & 5. Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 1-7 stand rejected.
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 NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm (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, BARBARA GILLIAM can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727