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 4 and 11 are cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-14, 21 and 22 are rejected.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/03/2025.
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, 6-9, 13-14, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 20200274197 A1, “Shin”) in view of Rumon et al. (Rumon et al. “Graphene oxide based crosslinker…”, “Rumon”).
Regarding claim 1, Shin discloses a composition for a gel polymer electrolyte (see abstract “gel polymer electrolyte composition”), comprising: a fluorine-based compound (see [0094] “fluorine” & [0246] “binder” & “PVDF”); a lithium salt (see abstract); and a crosslinking agent (see [0179] “crosslink”; see [0061] “oligomer” & “acrylate-based functional group”). Shin does not explicitly disclose comprising a graphene oxide surface-modified with methacrylate, wherein the composition comprises the crosslinking agent in an amount of more than about 0% by weight and less than about 2% by weight.
Rumon teaches “GO is one of the promising crosslinking materials to enhance the functionality of nanocomposite hydrogels. Recently, a facile route to prepare a novel functionalized graphene oxide-based crosslinker (GOBC) has been reported in one of the research works. The special crosslinker contains anchored acrylate groups in addition to surface functional species” (see P7454 par 3). Rumon teaches “GOBC can be an excellent choice as a crosslinker for simultaneous improvement of mechanical properties and self-healing behavior of different hydrogels” (see P7454 par 3). Rumon teaches “methacrylate groups” & “functionalization process of the GO surface” (see P7455 col 2 par 2) & see FIG. 1 describes GOBC & see FIG. 2 describes the improved toughness and modulus of elasticity of PAM-GOBC-0.05% & see P7457 describes in par 1 “both modulus and toughness of PAM hydrogel are improved by the presence of GO surfaces” & in FIG 2 “PAM-GOBC-0.05%” which lies within the claimed range. Rumon (see P7454) teaches “GOBC can be an excellent choice as a crosslinker for simultaneous improvement of mechanical properties and self-healing behavior of different hydrogels”. Rumon teaches on P7455 “in the spectrum of GOBC, the stretching vibrations of N-H, C=O, and C-N bonds of methacrylate groups were confirmed by the appearance of the peaks at 3360 cm-1, 1728 cm-1, and 1160 cm-1, respectively” & see FIG. 1(b) describes “GOBC” and peaks at the above-mentioned wavenumbers describes graphene oxide surface-modified with methacrylate.
Shin and Rumon are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same filed of endeavor, namely crosslinking materials (see Rumon P7454 par 3).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a crosslinking agent comprising a graphene oxide surface-modified with methacrylate as suggested by Rumon (see P7464 par 3, P7455 col 2 par 2, FIG. 2, P7457, P7454 par 3, FIG. 1) & 0.05% as suggested by Rumon (see FIG. 2) into the composition for a gel polymer electrolyte of Shin because Rumon suggests “GOBC is an excellent choice as a crosslinker for simultaneous improvement of mechanical properties and self-healing behavior of different hydrogels” (see P7454 par 3) & further suggests “PAM-GOBC-0.05%” (see FIG. 2 & P7457 col 1 par 1) provides improved modulus and toughness.
Regarding claim 2, Shin discloses the composition of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the fluorine-based compound comprises a perfluorinated sulfonic acid-based polymer (see [0103] “BETI” which reads on perfluorinated sulfonic acid-based polymer), and wherein the composition comprises a porous membrane in which the fluorine-based compound, the lithium salt, and the crosslinking agent are crosslinked by the crosslinking agent (see abstract “gel polymer electrolyte composition” & “lithium salt”; see [0270] “gel polymer electrolyte composition” & “EMI-FIS” reads on fluorine-based compound; “LiFSI” reads on lithium salt; see [0179] “crosslink” & “as well as an acrylate-based functional group as a hydrophilic portion capable of forming a crosslink at both ends by itself” which reads on crosslinked). Regarding the limitation comprising the graphene-based compound are crosslinked by the crosslinking agent, Shin does not explicitly disclose a crosslinking agent comprising the graphene-based compound.
Rumon teaches “GO is one of the promising crosslinking materials to enhance the functionality of nanocomposite hydrogels. Recently, a facile route to prepare a novel functionalized graphene oxide-based crosslinker (GOBC) has been reported in one of the research works. The special crosslinker contains anchored acrylate groups in addition to surface functional species” (see P7454 par 3). Rumon teaches “GOBC can be an excellent choice as a crosslinker for simultaneous improvement of mechanical properties and self-healing behavior of different hydrogels” (see P7454 par 3).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a crosslinking agent comprising a graphene-based compound as suggested by Rumon (see P7464 par 3) into the composition for a gel polymer electrolyte of Shin because Rumon suggests “GOBC is an excellent choice as a crosslinker for simultaneous improvement of mechanical properties and self-healing behavior of different hydrogels” (see P7454 par 3). A skilled artisan would find it obvious that hydrogel reads on porous membrane.
Regarding claim 8, Shin discloses a lithium secondary battery (see abstract) comprising: a cathode layer; an anode layer; and an electrolyte layer interposed between the cathode layer and the anode layer (see [0202] “form a stable film on surfaces of the negative electrode and the positive electrode”; see [0220] “gel polymer electrolyte may be formed by in-situ polymerization of the gel polymer electrolyte composition in the secondary battery” & see [0222] “electrode assembly composed of a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode in a battery case”), wherein the electrolyte layer comprises a gel polymer electrolyte (see [0181] describes “gel polymer electrolyte” & “interface between the electrode and the electrolyte”; see [0225] describes “polymerizing the gel polymer electrolyte composition to form a gel polymer electrolyte”), and the gel polymer electrolyte comprises a porous membrane (see [0264] “the separator plays a role in blocking an internal short circuit between both electrodes and impregnating the electrolyte”; see [0265] “porous polymer film” & “may be used” “as the separator”; see [0227] “electrolyte injection hole of the battery is sealed, the gel polymer electrolyte of the present invention may be prepared by performing thermal polymerization”) in which a fluorine-based compound (see [0094] “fluorine” & [0264] “binder” & “PVDF”), a lithium salt (see abstract), and a crosslinking agent (see [0179] “crosslink”; see [0061] “oligomer”).
Shin does not explicitly disclose comprising a graphene oxide surface-modified with methacrylate, wherein the composition comprises the crosslinking agent in an amount of more than about 0% by weight and less than about 2% by weight.
Rumon teaches “GO is one of the promising crosslinking materials to enhance the functionality of nanocomposite hydrogels. Recently, a facile route to prepare a novel functionalized graphene oxide-based crosslinker (GOBC) has been reported in one of the research works. The special crosslinker contains anchored acrylate groups in addition to surface functional species” (see P7454 par 3). Rumon teaches “GOBC can be an excellent choice as a crosslinker for simultaneous improvement of mechanical properties and self-healing behavior of different hydrogels” (see P7454 par 3). Rumon teaches “methacrylate groups” & “functionalization process of the GO surface” (see P7455 col 2 par 2) & see FIG. 1 describes GOBC & see FIG. 2 describes the improved toughness and modulus of elasticity of PAM-GOBC-0.05% & see P7457 describes in par 1 “both modulus and toughness of PAM hydrogel are improved by the presence of GO surfaces” & in FIG 2 “PAM-GOBC-0.05%” which lies within the claimed range. Rumon (see P7454) teaches “GOBC can be an excellent choice as a crosslinker for simultaneous improvement of mechanical properties and self-healing behavior of different hydrogels”. Rumon teaches on P7455 “in the spectrum of GOBC, the stretching vibrations of N-H, C=O, and C-N bonds of methacrylate groups were confirmed by the appearance of the peaks at 3360 cm-1, 1728 cm-1, and 1160 cm-1, respectively” & see FIG. 1(b) describes “GOBC” and peaks at the above-mentioned wavenumbers describes graphene oxide surface-modified with methacrylate.
Shin and Rumon are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same filed of endeavor, namely crosslinking materials (see Rumon P7454 par 3).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a crosslinking agent comprising a graphene oxide surface-modified with methacrylate as suggested by Rumon (see P7464 par 3, P7455 col 2 par 2, FIG. 2, P7457, P7454 par 3, FIG. 1) & 0.05% as suggested by Rumon (see FIG. 2) into the composition for a gel polymer electrolyte of Shin because Rumon suggests “GOBC is an excellent choice as a crosslinker for simultaneous improvement of mechanical properties and self-healing behavior of different hydrogels” (see P7454 par 3) & further suggests “PAM-GOBC-0.05%” (see FIG. 2 & P7457 col 1 par 1) provides improved modulus and toughness.
Regarding claim 6 and claim 13, Shin discloses the composition of claim 1, the lithium secondary battery of claim 8 and further discloses “lithium salt may be appropriately changed in a normally usable range” (see [0104]), “1 wt% to 30 wt%” & “PVDF” (see [0260]), “0.1 wt% to 30 wt%” & oligomer (see [0061]).
Shin discloses “if the amount of the oligomer is 0.1 wt% or more, a gel polymer electrolyte having a stable network structure may be prepared” (see [0174]) which lies within the claimed range of 0% to 2%. Shin does not explicitly disclose more than about 98% by weight and less than about 100% by weight of the fluorine-based compound and the lithium salt, however, Shin does disclose the “lithium salt may be appropriately changed in a normally usable range” & “since viscosity of the electrolyte is increased, a lithium ion-transfer effect in the gel polymer electrolyte may be reduced” (see [0104]).
A result effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious. MPEP § 2144.05.
Thus, the wt% of the lithium salt is a variable that achieves the recognized result of altering “the lithium ion-transfer effect in the gel polymer electrolyte”, as disclosed in [0104]. That makes the wt% of lithium salt a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to routinely experiment with the wt% of lithium salt and come up with a normally usable range for the purpose of improving the ion-transfer effect in the gel polymer electrolyte (see [0104]).
Regarding claim 7, Shin discloses the composition of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the composition further comprises an initiator (see abstract “initiator”), and the initiator comprises azobisdimethyl-valeronitrile (AMVN) (see [0197] “2,2’-azobisdimethyl-valeronitrile (AMVN)”).
Regarding claim 9, Shin discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 8 and further discloses wherein the fluorine-based compound comprises a perfluorinated sulfonic acid-based polymer (see [0103] “BETI” which reads on perfluorinated sulfonic acid-based polymer).
Regarding claim 14, Shin discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 8 and further discloses wherein the electrolyte layer further comprises a liquid electrolyte impregnated in the gel polymer electrolyte (see [0264] “impregnating the electrolyte”; see [0049] “the ionic liquid may be included in an amount of 1 wt% to 50 wt% based on a total weight of the gel polymer electrolyte composition for a lithium secondary battery”).
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 20200274197 A1, “Shin”) in view of Rumon et al. (Rumon et al. “Graphene oxide based crosslinker…”, “Rumon”) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Raghavan et al. (Raghavan, Prasanth Fatima, Jabeen M. J.. (2021)) and Armand et al. (Michel Armand et al. Lithium-ion batteries – Current state of the art and anticipated developments, Journal of Power Sources, Volume 479, 2020).
Regarding claim 3 and claim 10, Shin discloses the composition of claim 1, the lithium secondary battery of claim 8 and further discloses lithium salt (see abstract). Shin does not explicitly disclose wherein the lithium salt comprises lithium(4-styrenesulfonyl)(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiSTFSI).
Raghavan teaches “lithium(4styrenesulfonyl) (trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiSTFSI)” (see P128). Raghavan teaches “single Li-ion conducting Polymer-based QSSEs” (see P127).
Shin and Raghavan are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely polymer electrolytes.
Raghavan reference teaches Li(4-styrenesulfonyl) (trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiSTFSI) amongst a list of other compounds (see P129). KSR Rationale E states that it is obvious to choose "from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success".
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select LiSTFSI from the list of possible compounds taught in Raghavan.
Armand teaches LisTFSI (see P11 par 5 “LisTFSI as electrolyte salt for lithium-ion batteries” & “LisTFSI-based electrolyte showed high conformity with the Al current collector, and decent ionic conductivity”).
Shin and Armand are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely electrolytes for lithium-ion batteries.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate LiSTFSI, as suggested by Armand into the composition of Shin because doing so improves the ionic conductivity as suggested by Armand (see P11 par. 5).
Regarding claim 22, Shin discloses the lithium ion secondary battery of claim 14, and further discloses wherein the fluorine-based compound and the lithium salt have a mass ratio of about 1:1 (see [0246] “binder” & “1 wt% to 30 wt% based on the total weight of the solid content in the pos. electrode slurry” & “PVDF” & see [0134] “ionic liquid may be included in an amount 1 wt% to 50 wt%” & see [0136] “lithium salt” & 1 wt% of PVDF & 1 wt% of ionic liquid reads on ratio of about 1:1 which lies within the claimed range). Regarding the limitation and wherein the liquid electrolyte is impregnated in an amount of about 350 parts by weight to about 475 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the gel polymer electrolyte, Shin discloses in [0264] “impregnating the electrolyte” & in [0049] “ionic liquid may be included in an amount 1 wt% to 50 wt% based on a total weight of the gel polymer electrolyte composition for a lithium secondary battery” which is close to the claimed range of 3.5 wt% to 4.75 wt%). Shin discloses in [0136] “When the amount of the ionic liquid is less than 1 wt %, an effect of improving oxidation safety and flame retardancy may be insignificant. Also, since the ionic liquid has high viscosity, the viscosity of the gel polymer electrolyte composition is increased to reduce the wettability of the electrolyte when the ionic liquid is included at a level of co-solvent, for example, greater than wt %, and thus, it is difficult to function as the electrolyte. Particularly, in a case in which the amount of the ionic liquid is increased, since a dielectric constant is reduced while the concentration of the salt in the gel polymer electrolyte composition for a lithium secondary battery is increased, a lithium salt dissociation ability is reduced, and thus, the lithium salt may not be dissolved properly”.
The amount of liquid electrolyte disclosed by Shin is close to the claimed range and similar properties are expected. It is the Office’s position that the values are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected similar properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate greater than 1 wt% of ionic liquid as disclosed by Shin (see [0136]) because doing so has “an effect of improving oxidation safety and flame retardancy” as suggested by Shin (see [0136]).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 20200274197 A1, “Shin”) in view of Rumon et al. (Rumon et al. “Graphene oxide based crosslinker…”, “Rumon”) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (US 8480917 B2, “Kwon”).
Regarding claim 5 and claim 12, Shin discloses the composition of claim 1, the lithium secondary battery of claim 8, and further discloses “lithium salt may be appropriately changed in a normally usable range” (see [0104]) & “1 wt% to 30 wt%” & “polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)”. Shin does not explicitly disclose wherein the fluorine-based compound and the lithium salt have a mass ratio of about 1:0.1 to 1:10.
Kwon teaches ratio of electrolytic material to polymer linked PVDF (see col 6 par 4 lines 26-31 “the ratio of the electrolytic material and the polymer (cross-linked PVDF-based polymer alone or in combination with non-crosslinked PVDF-based polymer) may be 9:1 (w/w)-5:5 (w/w)” which lies within the claimed range.
Shin and Kwon are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely fluorine-containing polymer (see title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kwon to include ratio into the composition of Shin because Kwon teaches the salt and the fluorine-based compound have a ratio 9:1 (w/w) (or 1:9 fluorine-based compound to salt and electrolytic material reads on salt) which lies within the claimed range.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 20200274197 A1, “Shin”) in view of Rumon et al. (Rumon et al. “Graphene oxide based crosslinker…”, “Rumon”) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Ahn et al. (KR 20220034686 A, “Ahn”) as an evidentiary reference. The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 21, Shin discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 8.
Shin does not explicitly disclose wherein the gel polymer electrolyte comprises: an amount of about 99% by weight to about 99.5% by weight of the fluorine-based compound and the lithium salt, however, Shin does disclose the “lithium salt may be appropriately changed in a normally usable range” & “since viscosity of the electrolyte is increased, a lithium ion-transfer effect in the gel polymer electrolyte may be reduced” (see [0104]).
A result effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious. MPEP § 2144.05.
Thus, the wt% of the lithium salt is a variable that achieves the recognized result of altering “the lithium ion-transfer effect in the gel polymer electrolyte”, as disclosed in [0104]. That makes the wt% of lithium salt a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to routinely experiment with the wt% of lithium salt and come up with a normally usable range for the purpose of improving the ion-transfer effect in the gel polymer electrolyte (see [0104]).
Regarding the limitation and an amount of about 0.5% by weight to about 1% by weight of the crosslinking agent, Shin discloses in [0061] “oligomer may be included in an amount 0.1 wt% to 30 wt% based on the total weight of the gel polymer electrolyte composition for a lithium secondary battery”). Shin discloses in [0174] “if the amount of the oligomer is 0.1 wt % or more, a gel polymer electrolyte having a stable network structure may be prepared, and, if the amount of the oligomer is 30 wt % or less, for example, 20 wt % or less, wettability may be secured by preventing an increase in resistance due to the addition of the excessive amount of the oligomer and, simultaneously, a decrease in ionic conductivity may be prevented by improving restriction of the movement of lithium ions”.
Shin discloses a range of 0.1 wt% or more & “30 wt% or less”, which overlaps with the claimed range of about 0.5% by weight to about 1% by weight. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
A result effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious. MPEP § 2144.05.
Thus, the wt% of crosslinking agent (oligomer) is a variable that achieves the recognized result of improving ionic conductivity. That makes the wt% oligomer a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to routinely experiment with the wt% and come up with less than 30 wt% and 0.1 wt% or more for the purpose of improving ionic conductivity as suggested by Shin (see [0174]).
Regarding the limitation and wherein the gel polymer electrolyte has a lithium ion conductivity of at least about 8.0x10-5 S·cm-1 at 25 °C, Shin does not explicitly disclose, however, conductivity is an inherent property of the material.
Ahn provides evidence in [0323]-[0324] “ionic conductivity of the gel polymer electrolytes of Examples 1-4 is excellent” & “ionic conductivity of about 1.7x10 S/cm or higher at 25° C which lies within the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the battery exhibits an ionic conductivity of 1.7x10 S/cm or higher at 25°C as evidenced by Ahn (see [0323]-[0324]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant’s arguments on P7 that “Rogojina does not disclose or suggest claim 1’s “graphene oxide surface-modified with methacrylate”, Rumon teaches graphene oxide surface-modified with methacrylate. Rumon teaches “GO is one of the promising crosslinking materials to enhance the functionality of nanocomposite hydrogels. Recently, a facile route to prepare a novel functionalized graphene oxide-based crosslinker (GOBC) has been reported in one of the research works. The special crosslinker contains anchored acrylate groups in addition to surface functional species” (see P7454 par 3). Rumon teaches “GOBC can be an excellent choice as a crosslinker for simultaneous improvement of mechanical properties and self-healing behavior of different hydrogels” (see P7454 par 3). Rumon teaches “methacrylate groups” & “functionalization process of the GO surface” (see P7455 col 2 par 2) & see FIG. 1 describes GOBC & see FIG. 2 describes the improved toughness and modulus of elasticity of PAM-GOBC-0.05% & see P7457 describes in par 1 “both modulus and toughness of PAM hydrogel are improved by the presence of GO surfaces” & in FIG 2 “PAM-GOBC-0.05%” which lies within the claimed range. Rumon (see P7454) teaches “GOBC can be an excellent choice as a crosslinker for simultaneous improvement of mechanical properties and self-healing behavior of different hydrogels”. Rumon teaches on P7455 “in the spectrum of GOBC, the stretching vibrations of N-H, C=O, and C-N bonds of methacrylate groups were confirmed by the appearance of the peaks at 3360 cm-1, 1728 cm-1, and 1160 cm-1, respectively” & see FIG. 1(b) describes “GOBC” and peaks at the above-mentioned wavenumbers describes graphene oxide surface-modified with methacrylate.
Shin and Rumon are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same filed of endeavor, namely crosslinking materials (see Rumon P7454 par 3).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a crosslinking agent comprising a graphene oxide surface-modified with methacrylate as suggested by Rumon (see P7464 par 3, P7455 col 2 par 2, FIG. 2, P7457, P7454 par 3, FIG. 1) & 0.05% as suggested by Rumon (see FIG. 2) into the composition for a gel polymer electrolyte of Shin because Rumon suggests “GOBC is an excellent choice as a crosslinker for simultaneous improvement of mechanical properties and self-healing behavior of different hydrogels” (see P7454 par 3) & further suggests “PAM-GOBC-0.05%” (see FIG. 2 & P7457 col 1 par 1) provides improved modulus and toughness.
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 SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights