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 12/17/25 have been received. Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 13, 17, 21, 23, 25, 30, 36, and 41 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 43 is new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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. Claim 2 recites monomers that are not acrylonitrile nor acrylonitrile derivatives such as allyl nitrile, 1-cyclohexeneacetonitrile, 3-cyclohexene-1-carbonitrile, 1-cyclopenteneacetonitrile, 1,2-dicyanocyclobutene, cyclovinyl-1,2-dinitrile, diaminomaleonitrile, ethoxymethylenemalononitrile, cis-2-(tert-Butyl)maleonitrile, 2,2,3,4,4-pentafluoro-3-butenenitrile, 1-cyano-2-propenyl acetate and benzylidenemalononitrile.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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 1, Patel discloses 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).
Regarding claim 2, Patel discloses the acrylonitrile monomer comprises at least one of acrylonitrile (experimental).
Regarding claim 6, Patel discloses the polymerization initiator is selected from azobisisobutyronitrile (experimental).
Regarding claim 8, Patel discloses the lithium salt is selected from at least one of lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (experimental).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 10 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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 as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, Patel discloses polymerization was performed in an electrolyte solution comprising 0.5 M lithium bis (trifluoromethanesulphonyl)imide (experimental). Patel discloses various ratios of AN to Py1,4-TFSI(maintaining a constant LiTFSI concentration = 0.5 M) were used to synthesize the polymer “gel” electrolytes (experimental). Patel discloses the crosslinked polymer network sustains fast ion transport via an optimized number of pathways (p. 17422, Col. 1, lines 3-4), the multifunctional polymer “gel” showed superior cyclability and rate capability battery performance compared to the ionic liquid (conclusions) 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 Patel 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 ionic conductivity, cyclability and rate capability, 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).
Regarding claim 43, Patel discloses a ratio of a molar amount of the lithium salt to a volume of the gel skeleton monomer is 0.1-2 mol/L (0.5 M, experimental).
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).
Patel discloses the gel electrolyte precursor according to claim 1 (abstract, experimental) 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 and 40-41 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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