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
This office action is in response to the paper filed on 08/13/2025.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 1-14 are awaiting this office action.
The 112(b) rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Claims 1-14 have been rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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, Takahashi (US20090169976A1) employs a non-aqueous solvent to further to improve the safety of polymer electrolyte secondary cells at the time of overcharge (par. [0013]).
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.
6. Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerasopoulos (US20200343586A1) in view of Naruoka (US20050008563A1) and Takahashi (US20090169976A1).
As to claims 1, 7, and 12-13, Gerasopoulos teaches a gel polymer electrolyte (GPE) composition and a method of forming the same (par. [0004]). Gerasopoulos discloses an electrochemical cell comprising a cathode, anode, and a GPE that is disposed between and in contact with the cathode and anode (par. [0058]). Certain embodiments of Gerasopoulos' invention provide a GPE composition including a polymer network and an electrolyte composition (par. [0036]). The electrolyte composition mentioned comprises a DES having a eutectic point (e.g., lowest freezing/solidifying temperature for the DES) of less than or equal to 25° (par. [0036]). Forming the GPE that may include combining a DES solution and a monomer containing composition to form a GPE-precursor (par. [0060]). Gerasopoulos further teaches the use of a lithium-based compounds as a cathode active material (par. [0057]) but fails to disclose the composition of the compounds and a cathode active material that meet the requirements of formula (I).
Naruoka teaches a nominal composition of a positive active material represented by LiaNibCocMndAleO2 (par. [0007]). Naruoka discloses a nominal composition where 0.05≤a≤1.20, 0.25≤b≤0.93, 0.05≤c≤0.35, 0.01≤d≤0.35, 0.01≤e≤0.15, and 0.9 ≤ b+c+d+e ≤ 1.1, respectively (par. [0011]). Each variables' composition range contribute to a stable crystal structure of the positive active material, a secured thermal stability of the positive material, and provides a preferable capacity value for the positive material (par. [0012]).
Takahashi teaches a polymer electrolyte that is formed by polymerizing a monomer (par. [0044]). Takahashi discloses that Examples 3, 12, and 13 use a non-aqueous solvent containing methyl trimethylacetate (MTMA) and a monomer containing N,N-dimethylacrylamide (DMAA) or N,Ndiethylacrylamide (DEAA) (par. [0083]). The use of DEAA as the first monomer satisfies the requirements of formula (I) in claim 1. Takahashi employs these non-aqueous solvents within the polymer electrolyte to further to improve the safety of polymer electrolyte secondary cells at the time of overcharge (par. [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to add the positive active material composition and monomer of Naruoka and Takahashi's inventions respectively to stabilize the crystal structure of the positive active material (par. [0012]) and improve the safety of polymer electrolyte secondary cells at the time of overcharge (par. [0013]).
See MPEP 2145; If a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with arguments and/or evidence to rebut the prima facie case. See, e.g., In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc). Applicant may also present rebuttal evidence and arguments prior to an Office action in anticipation of possible prior art rejections. Examiners should consider all evidence of obviousness and nonobviousness of record before making a determination under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 2, modified Gerasopoulos discloses an anode comprising an anode-composition comprising an active anode species and the cathode comprises a cathode-composition comprising an active cathode species (par. [0056]). The anode may comprise graphite, lithium, etc. and the cathode may comprise a lithium metal oxide such as a lithium cobalt oxide, lithium-nickel oxide, etc. (par. 0057]).
As to claim 3, modified Gerasopoulos discloses a monomer containing N,N-diethylacrylamide (DEAA) as taught by Takahashi previously wherein the monomer DEAA follows option B.
As to claims 4-6, modified Gerasopoulos teaches a polymer electrolyte that is obtainable by polymerizing a precursor composition comprising the electrolyte composition and a monomer (par. [0060]) and a GPE precursor composition. In this regard, the presence of the polymer network significantly stabilizes the electrochemical cell performance in the presence of water. (par. [0079]). Gerasopoulos also discloses the use of high functional monomers (crosslinkers) (par. [0043]) with a crosslinker ratio of 98:2 as evident in fig. 16 (par. [0078]). Gerasopoulos discloses in FIG. 16 a plot showing excellent capacity retention and performance for electrochemical cells made using equal parts of HEA and MPEGA, while PEGDA (cross-linker) makes up the difference in the compositions. Polyethylene Glycol Diacrylate (PEGDA) contains two acrylate functional groups.
As to claim 8, modified Gerasopoulos discloses that the DES comprises at least one hydrogen bond donor and at least one hydrogen bond acceptor (par. [0047]). The at least one hydrogen bond acceptor, for example, may comprise a lithium salt, a zinc salt, or combination thereof (par. [0047]).
As to claim 9, modified Gerasopoulos discloses that the at least one hydrogen bond acceptor may comprise lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI), lithium trifluoromethanesulfonate (LiOTf), lithium chloride (LiCl), lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6), a lithium polysulfide, lithium perchlorate (LiCl4), lithium bromide (LiBr), lithium iodide (LiI), lithium thiocyanate (LiSCN), lithium tetrafluoroborate (LiBF4), lithium hexafluoroarsenate (LiAsF6), lithium bis(oxalate)borate (LiBOB), LiFAP [LiPF3(CF2CF3)3], zinc trifluoromethanesulfonate (Zn(OTf)2), or zinc di[bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide)] Zn(TFSI)2, and combinations thereof (par. [0047]).
As to claim 10, modified Gerasopoulos discloses that at least one hydrogen bond donor may comprise a carboxylic acid, an amide, and/or a urea. Non-limiting examples of hydrogen bond donors include choline nitrate and more (par. [0049]).
As to claim 11, modified Gerasopoulos discloses the use of DEAA as a monomer and therefore satisfies the requirements of formula (I) in claim 11.
As to claim 14, modified Gerasopoulos discloses a positive active material represented by LiaNibCocMndAleO2 as taught by Naruoka previously. Gerasopoulos teaches an electrochemical cell including an anode, a cathode, and a GPE positioned between and in contact with the anode and the cathode (par. [0005]).
Naruoka also teaches a method of forming a non-aqueous electrolyte rechargeable battery (par. [0008]) wherein the rechargeable battery is comprised of a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and the combination of a separator, an organic or inorganic solid electrolyte, and the foregoing non-aqueous electrolyte solution (par. [0058]). Naruoka discloses that it is possible to use solid ion conductive polymer electrolytes secondarily further stating that polymer electrolyte membranes are light and flexible, so it is advantageous to use it for a wound type electrode plate (par. [0058]).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JADE S SIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)270-7254. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9:00am - 5:00pm 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.
JADE SIMMONS
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/J.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727