DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
2. Applicant’s amendments submitted on 4/13/26 have been received. Claims 1 and 2 have been amended. Claims 3-5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 18-20, 22, 26-29, 31-35, 39, and 42 have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1, 2, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaneko et al. JP 2010-170878 as cited in IDS dated 12/29/23 with citations from equivalent US 2011/0274982.
Regarding claim 1, Kaneko discloses a gel electrolyte precursor([0034]), comprising a gel skeleton monomer([0065]), a flexible additive(ionic liquid [0034]), a polymerization initiator ([0068]) and a lithium salt([0034]), wherein the gel skeleton monomer comprises an acrylonitrile-based monomer([0065]); wherein the flexible additive is selected from an ionic liquid([0063], [0110]); wherein the ionic liquid comprises at least one of l-methyl-l-propylpyrrolidinium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide ([0110]).
Regarding claim 2, Kaneko discloses the acrylonitrile-based monomer comprises at least one of acrylonitrile([0065]).
Regarding claim 8, Kaneko discloses the lithium salt is selected from at least one of lithium perchlorate, or lithium tetrafluoroborate([0064]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. JP 2010-170878 as cited in IDS dated 12/29/23 with citations from equivalent US 2011/0274982 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Patel, et al., “Utilizing an ionic liquid for synthesizing a soft matter polymer “gel” electrolyte for high rate capability lithium ion batteries”, Journal of Materials Chemistry, 2011 August 25:21;17419-24 as cited in IDS dated 6/7/24.
Regarding claim 6, Kaneko discloses benzoins and peroxides can be used as a thermal polymerization initiator if needed, but the initiator is not limited to these([0068]) but does not explicitly disclose the polymerization initiator is selected from azobisisobutyronitrile and/or azobisisoheptanenitrile.
Patel teaches a gel electrolyte precursor(abstract, experimental, Fig. 1), comprising a gel skeleton monomer(acrylonitrile (AN), experimental), a flexible additive (N,N-methyl butyl pyrrolidinum bis(trifluoromethanesulphonyl)imide (Py₁,₄-TFSI), abstract, experimental), a polymerization initiator (azobisisobutyronitrile (AIBN), experimental) and a lithium salt (lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulphonyl)imide (LiTFSI), experimental) wherein the gel skeleton monomer comprises an acrylonitrile monomer(experimental); wherein the flexible additive is selected from an ionic liquid; wherein the ionic liquid comprises at least one of 1-butyl-1-methylpyrrolidinium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide salt (experimental). Patel teaches the polymerization initiator is selected from azobisisobutyronitrile (experimental).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the gel electrolyte precursor of Kaneko with the polymerization initiator is selected from azobisisobutyronitrile as taught by Patel as obvious to try choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
9. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. JP 2010-170878 as cited in IDS dated 12/29/23 with citations from equivalent US 2011/0274982 as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, Kaneko discloses an object of the exemplary embodiment is to provide a lithium ion battery which maintains the flame retardancy of an electrolyte over a long period of time, has high energy density, and has improved charge-discharge cycle characteristics, high temperature storage characteristics, and rate characteristics([0033]). Kaneko discloses a lithium ion battery using a pregel solution capable of forming an electrolyte or a gel electrolyte containing at least an ionic liquid and a lithium salt and a carbon material whose surface is improved with a surface treatment agent as a negative electrode active material included in the negative electrode([0034]). Kaneko discloses a pregel solution was produced by adding triethylene glycol diacrylate and trimethylolpropane triacrylate in an amount of 3.8% by mass and 1% by mass, respectively, as gelling agents, to an electrolyte prepared by mixing MPPp-FSI as an ionic liquid and 0.7 mol/L of LiTFSI as a lithium salt, thoroughly mixing the mixture, and then mixing t-butylperoxypivalate in an amount of 0.5% by mass as a polymerization initiator (Example 25, [0138]) but does not explicitly disclose based on that a total mass of the gel skeleton monomer, the flexible additive and the polymerization initiator is 100%, the gel electrolyte precursor comprises the following components: gel skeleton monomer 50-65%; flexible additive 30-45%; polymerization initiator 2-5%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the gel electrolyte precursor of Kaneko with based on that a total mass of the gel skeleton monomer, the flexible additive and the polymerization initiator is 100%, the gel electrolyte precursor comprises the following components: gel skeleton monomer 50-65%; flexible additive 30-45%; polymerization initiator 2-5% in order to balance the flame retardancy of the electrolyte and improved charge-discharge cycle and rate characteristics, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.05 (II-A).
10. Claim(s) 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. JP 2010-170878 as cited in IDS dated 12/29/23 with citations from equivalent US 2011/0274982 as applied to claims 1 and 10 above.
Regarding claim 43, Kaneko discloses a ratio of a molar amount of the lithium salt to a volume of the gel skeleton monomer is 0.7 mol/L( [0138]) which is within the claim range of 0.1-2 mol/L, thus reading on the limitation.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In particular, the allowable limitation is a solution for preparing a gel electrolyte, comprising the gel electrolyte precursor according to claim 1 and an electrolyte liquid.
In the instant invention, the gel skeleton monomer serves as the skeleton of the gel electrolyte, the flexible additive acts to soften the gel electrolyte, and subsequently, the gel electrolyte precursor is mixed with the electrolyte liquid, and then subjected to in-situ polymerization gelation and baking, so as to obtain a gel electrolyte with an elastic porous structure; the gel electrolyte can absorb electrolyte liquid inside the battery, thereby reducing the free electrolyte liquid in the battery, and improving the safety performance of the battery due to the reduction in the electrolyte amount([0010] US 2023/0335793).
Kaneko discloses the gel electrolyte precursor according to claim 1 ([0034], [0063], [0065], [0068], [0110]) but does not disclose, teach or render obvious a solution for preparing a gel electrolyte, comprising the gel electrolyte precursor of claim 1 and an electrolyte liquid.
12. Claims 13, 16, 17, 21, 23-25, 30, 36-38, 40, and 41 are objected to as being dependent upon allowable claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the allowable claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12-13, 16-17, 21, 23-25, 30, 36-38, 40-41 and 43 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 VICTORIA HOM LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-0489. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/VICTORIA H LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights