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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 14-20 in the reply filed on 11/14/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction was improper reasons discussed in MPEP 800, specifically 803 and 806.03. This is not found persuasive because MPEP 800 is directed to US restriction practice while the instant invention is a 371 application and therefore restricted under Unity of Invention analysis per MPEP 823. While Applicant cites “the burden necessary according to MPEP 1893.03(d)” (see bottom of page 3 of the Remarks filed 11/14/25), the examiner notes that that section of the MPEP does not describe a burden and Applicant fails to specify the alleged burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dasgupta et al. (US 2002/0031706).
Regarding claim 14, Dasgupta teaches a battery cell comprising:
a positive electrode and a negative electrode (14, 18) and a separator (16) (Figure 2A, [0033]),
both the positive and negative electrodes comprising a porous solid-state electrolyte foam, or structure of ion conductive solid polymer filaments (2), comprising at least one lithium salt, or lithium compound containing electrolyte solution (8), and an electrode material, or electro-active particles (4), located in the pores (Figures 1 and 2B, [0028]).
The examiner finds that the foam, or filaments (2), of Dasgupta are porous structures and serve as host structures in which the electrode materials are incorporated, as is indicated in the instant specification to describe a foam (see [0056] of the published application).
As for claims 15-17, the electrolyte foam, or solid polymer filaments, of both electrodes comprise polyethylene oxide ([0038]).
Regarding claim 18, the lithium salt is LiPF6 ([0038]).
With regard to claim 20, Dasgupta teaches the cell as discussed above provided in a rechargeable lithium battery ([0038]).
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dasgupta as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Less et al. (US 2009/0087728).
The teachings of Dasgupta as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Dasgupta teaches that the separator is a polymer film, e.g. two layers of polypropylene and two layers of polyethylene ([0038]), but fails to teach that the separator comprises polyethylene oxide.
Less teaches separators as laminated PP/PE films or polyethylene oxide ([0015]-[0016]).
It would have been obvious to substitute polyethylene oxide in the PP/PE separator of Dasgupta such as suggested by Less and the results of the substitution, i.e. providing a separator for use in a battery, would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 I B
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALIX ECHELMEYER EGGERDING whose telephone number is (571)272-1101. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 4:30pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/ALIX E EGGERDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729