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 .
Restriction/Election
The Applicant’s election of Group I, without traverse, in the reply dated 3 November 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 5, 7, 9, 11 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2, 5, 7, 9 & 11, the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 2 & 5, claims 2 & 5 further limit the flexible additive & the crosslinking agent, respectively. However, both claims expressly disclose ethoxylated trimethylolpropane triacrylate and/or propoxylated trimethylolpropane triacrylate (Claim 2, lines 5-6; Claim 5, line 5). Therefore, it is unclear if ethoxylated trimethylolpropane triacrylate and propoxylated trimethylolpropane triacrylate are intended to be the flexible additive and/or the crosslinking agent. This ambiguity becomes exacerbated when respective amounts of components are considered.
Regarding claim 13, depends from claim 11 and inherits all its limitations & indefiniteness, rendering the claim similarly indefinite.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Jin et al. (US 2016/0211548 A1).
Regarding claims 1 – 3 & 5, Jin teaches a gel electrolyte composition (Abstract). The composition comprises at least one compound of a general formula (1), a non-aqueous solvent & a lithium salt (p. 1, [0017]-[0020]). Compounds suitable for use as general formula (1) include ethoxylated trimethylolpropane triacrylate and pentaerythritol tetraacrylate (p. 1, [0023]), both of which abide by the limitations & read on the crosslinking agent of claims 1 & 5. The invention may further comprise an initiator (p. 2, [0028]). The composition may further comprise an additive (p. 2, [0031]) which may preferably be vinylene carbonate (p. 3, [0033]), reading on the gel skeleton monomer of claims 1 & 3.
The invention may further comprise an ethylene glycol oligomer having a structure of formula: CH2=C(R)COO(CH2CH2O)n–COC(R)=CH2; wherein n is an integer of 1 – 12 and R is methyl or ethyl (p. 2, [0026]). Observing that n = 12 & R = ethyl as the largest possible ethylene glycol oligomer, a maximum molecular weight (Mw) of said ethylene glycol oligomer suitable for use in the invention results in 710 g/mol. Thus, said ethylene glycol oligomer reads on the flexible additive of claims 1 & 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select vinylene carbonate as the preferable additive to be included in Jin’s invention as it is recognized by the prior art as preferably suitable for this purpose. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Modification of Jin as detailed above results in a gel electrolyte precursor composition comprising a lithium salt, an initiator, ethoxylated trimethylolpropane triacrylate or pentaerythritol tetraacrylate as the crosslinking agent, vinylene carbonate as the gel skeleton monomer and an ethylene glycol oligomer as the flexible additive with a molecular weight of less than 5,000 g/mol. Modification of Jin as detailed above reads on limitations established by claims 1 – 3 & 5.
Regarding claim 7, Jin remains as applied above. Jin teaches the polymerization initiator may be azobisisobutyronitrile (p. 2, [0028]). It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 9, Jin remains as applied above. Jin teaches the lithium salt may be lithium tetrafluoroborate or lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (p. 2, [0030]). It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claims 11 & 13, Jin remains as applied above. Jin teaches the vinylene carbonate (i.e., gel skeleton monomer) may be present in amounts of 60-99 wt.% (p. 2, [0029]). The ethylene glycol oligomer (i.e., flexible additive) is present in amounts of 0.1-10 wt.% (p. 2, [0026]).
The compounds suitable for use as compound (1) in the invention (i.e., pentaerythritol tetraacrylate and/or ethoxylated trimethylolpropane triacrylate) may be present in amounts of 0.1-10 wt.% (p. 1, [0022]). The initiator is present in amounts of 0.002-8 wt.% (p. 6, Claim 7). The lithium salt is present in relation to the non-aqueous solvent (i.e., gel skeleton monomer) in amounts such that the concentration of said lithium salt is 0.2-2.0 mol/L (p. 1, [0022]).
The above disclosures read on all limitations established by claims 11 & 13. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAAN ROELOFSE whose telephone number is (571)272-2825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571)270-7733. 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.
/CHRISTIAAN ROELOFSE/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762