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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/5/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,2,4-8,11-12,14,16-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by the machine translation of Satou (JP2002203604A) with evidence by Matsui (US 6677084 B1).
Regarding claims 1, 5, and 6, Satou discloses an electrolyte comprising: a polymer obtained by polymerizing a monomer represented by the following Formula (1) [Chem. 1]
PNG
media_image1.png
92
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(In Formula (1), R1 and R2 each independently represent H or a linear, branched, or cyclic alkyl group having 1 to 20 carbon atoms. X1 and X2 each independently represent O or NH. When X2 is 0, n represents an integer of 0 to 30 on average, and when X2 is NH, n represents an integer of 1 to 30 on average.); (para. 0059, [component C = polyethylene glycol dimethacrylate] X1 and X2 = O) (para. 0276, n = 9)
a glyme represented by the following Formula (2) [Chem. 2]
PNG
media_image2.png
35
371
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(In Formula (2), R3 and R4 each independently represent an alkyl group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms, and m represents an integer of 1 to 4.; (para. 0056, [methyl tetraglyme] m=4)
a glyme represented by Formula 2 (as explained above), which serves as a plasticizer for a polymer (Matsui discloses a solid polymer electrolyte [Matsui, abstract] and a plasticizer [Matsui, abstract] [Matsui, column 5, lines 60-67 and column 6, line 9, the plasticizer is an aprotic organic solvent … the aprotic organic solvent is preferably… methyl tetraglyme]. Matusi provides various methods in which the methyl tetraglyme can serve to plasticize a polymer (column 7, lines …, one can use a method of immersing the polyether copolymer [polymer] in an organic solvent containing the electrolyte salt compound and the plasticizer for a long time for impregnation …]).
and at least one salt selected from the group consisting of a lithium salt, a sodium salt, a magnesium salt, a potassium salt, and a calcium salt. (para. 0054, [the ionic conductive salt of component A] includes a list of lithium salts)
wherein the monomer functions as a solvent (para. 0023, a solvent (C) molecule capable of dissolving the ion conductive salt) (Examiner notes that the monomer is represented by component (C) of Satou, which is the monomer represented by Formula (1) as described above), and
therefore the electrolyte does not contain an organic solvent (Satou, para. 0056, [examples of the solvent … include … and water, which is a solvent generally used for electrochemical devices … one of these solvents may be used alone …) (Examiner notes that the use of water as a solvent removes the need for an organic solvent.)
Regarding claims 2, 4, and 12 , Satou discloses the electrolyte according to claim 1,
wherein an anion of the salt is at least one selected from the group consisting of PF6-, BF4-, and Cl04-. (para. 0054. [lithium salts selected from PF6-, BF4-, and Cl04-)
Regarding claim 7, Satou discloses a secondary cell at least comprising: a positive electrode (para. 0023); a negative electrode (para. 0023); and an electrolyte layer between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (para. 0023, [a separator … interposed between the positive and negative electrodes]), wherein the electrolyte layer is the electrolyte according to claim 1 (para 0023, the electrolyte layer comprises a three-dimensional network structure formed by impregnating an electrolyte composition containing the electrolyte components that are claimed in claim 1).
Regarding claims 8 and 11, Satou discloses a composite material comprising: the electrolyte according to claim 1; and further discloses a porous carrier (para. 0047).
Regarding claim 14, Satou discloses the electrolyte according to claim 2, and further discloses wherein in Formula (1), when X2 is O, n is 3 to 14 on average (para. 0059, [component C = polyethylene glycol dimethacrylate] X1 and X2 = O) (para. 0276, n = 9).
Regarding claim 16, Satou discloses the electrolyte according to claim 4, and further discloses wherein in Formula (1), when X2 is O, n is 3 to 14 on average (para. 0059, [component C = polyethylene glycol dimethacrylate] X1 and X2 = O) (para. 0276, n = 9).
Regarding claim 17, Satou discloses the electrolyte according to claim 12, and further discloses wherein in Formula (1), when X2 is O, n is 3 to 14 on average (para. 0059, [component C = polyethylene glycol dimethacrylate] X1 and X2 = O) (para. 0276, n = 9).
Regarding claim 19, Satou discloses the electrolyte according to claim 2, wherein in Formula (2), m is 4 (para. 0056, [methyl tetraglyme] m=4).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 3, 13,15,18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satou (JP2002203604A) and further in view of McEwen (US 20020110739 A).
Regarding claim 3, Satou teaches the electrolyte according to claim 2, and further teaches wherein the anion of the salt can be the anion of LiN(CF2), LiCF3SO3, and the like.
Satou does not teach wherein the anion of the salt is N (FSO2)2 - or N (CF3SO2)2 -.
McEwen, in the same field of endeavor, solid electrolytes, teaches representative examples of salts that can be used for battery applications and further teaches that these salts can be selected from anions of N(CF3SO2)2-. (para. 0049).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized an ionic salt of N(CF3SO2)2- within the electrolyte, as taught by McEwen. The simple substitution of a known element (the anion of LiCF3SO3) for another (N(CF3SO2)2-) would achieve the predictable result of providing a suitable ionic salt for battery applications, as disclosed by McEwen. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 13, modified Satou teaches the electrolyte according to claim 3, and further teaches wherein the salt is a lithium salt (para. 0049).
Regarding claim 15, modified Satou teaches the electrolyte according to claim 3, and Satou further teaches wherein in Formula (1), when X2 is 0, n is 3 to 14 on average (para. 0059, [component C = polyethylene glycol dimethacrylate] X1 and X2= O) (para. 0276, n = 9).
Regarding claim 18, modified Satou teaches the electrolyte according to claim 13, and Satou further teaches wherein in Formula (1), when X2 is 0, n is 3 to 14 on average (para. 0059, [component C = polyethylene glycol dimethacrylate] X1 and X2= O) (para. 0276, n = 9).
Regarding claim 20, Satou teaches the electrolyte according to claim 3, wherein in Formula (2), m is 4 (para. 0056, [methyl tetraglyme] m=4).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satou (JP2002203604A).
Regarding claim 9, Satou teaches the composite material according to claim 1.
Satou does not teach wherein the porous carrier has a through hole penetrating in a thickness direction.
Satou teaches that a filler may be added to the polymer separator, and further teaches that the filler forms a matrix and micropores within the separator (para. 0048).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the matrix of Satou to include a through hole at the two interfaces of the separator, via the micropores formed, in a thickness direction, in order to impregnate the pores with an electrolytic solution, as taught by Satou (para. 0048). Satou teaches a method for producing the separator which forms microspores at the interface of the polymer (para. 0048).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satou (JP2002203604A) and further in view of Coors (US 20130244085 A1)
Regarding claim 10, Satou teaches the porous composite material according to claim 8.
Satou does not teach wherein the carrier is a honeycomb film (para. 0011).
Coors, in the same field of endeavor, separators, teaches a carrier of a honeycomb structure (para. 0009).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have structured Satou’s separator in a honeycomb type structure/pattern, as taught by Coors, in order to provide a strong, thin-membraned separator that can handle various stresses (para. 0030).
Response to Arguments
In the advisory action mailed on 4/13/26, the examiner stated that further search and consideration would be needed for the proposed amendment. After reconsideration, the examiner notes that the primary reference of Satou does teach
wherein the monomer functions as a solvent (see claim 1 above), and
therefore the electrolyte does not contain an organic solvent (see claim 1 above).
Applicant's arguments filed 5/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that Satou fails to disclose that “the electrolyte does not contain an organic solvent”. Applicant further states that “Satou, as described in paragraph [0056] and as evidenced by Matsui (col. 7, line 17), exemplify and require addition of organic solvents for the electrolyte”.
Examiner responds by stating that Satou is not limited to the use of an organic solvent. Satou teaches that the solvent for the electrolyte can be limited to water; and therefore an organic solvent is not needed in Satou’s electrochemical device (Satou, para. 0056, [examples of the solvent … include … and water, which is a solvent generally used for electrochemical devices … one of these solvents may be used alone …)(see claim 1 above).
Furthermore, Matsui is referenced to support that a glyme can serve as a plasticizer. Satou includes a glyme within his electrolyte, (para. 0056, [methyl tetraglyme] m=4) (see claim 1 above), and as evidenced by Matsui, the glyme within Satou’s electrolyte can function as a plasticizer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERITA E GRANNUM whose telephone number is (571)270-1150. The examiner can normally be reached 10-5 EST / 7-2 PST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/V.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights