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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in P15 line 28 “Figure 1” should read “FIG. 2” and P21 line 30 “and n” should read “and an”. Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-16 and 22-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/10/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, 17-21, 26-28 in the reply filed on 02/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “because the common invention feature of composite cathode material is present in Group I, Group II, and Group III, restriction between these groups is improper” as argued on P9. This is not found persuasive because Group I, II, and III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of composite cathode material, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Zhamu et al. (US 20190067732 A1, “Zhamu”), as set forth in the International Search Report Dated 05/05/2023. Zhamu discloses a composite cathode material (see abstract “cathode active material” & “polymer gel electrolyte” & “dispersed in” & see [0172] “composite cathode”).
Regarding the arguments on P8 “a search of all the claims would not impose a serious burden on the Office”, this is not found persuasive because burden is not a consideration in a lack of unity restriction.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10, 17-21, 26-28 are rejected.
Claims 11-16 and 22-25 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3 “polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) polyacrylonitrile (PAN)” is missing a comma and should read “polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), polyacrylonitrile (PAN)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3 “LiN(CF3SO2)2 (LiTFSI)” is missing a comma and should read “LiN(CF3SO2)2, (LiTFSI)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 “LIPF6” appears to be a typo and should read “LiPF6”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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, 3, 5-8, 10, 17-18, 21, 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhamu et al. (US 20190067732 A1, “Zhamu”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhamu discloses a composite cathode material comprising a gel polymer electrolyte and particles of a cathode material, the particles of the cathode material being arranged in the gel polymer electrolyte (see abstract “cathode active material” & “polymer gel electrolyte” & “dispersed in” & see [0172] “composite cathode”).
Regarding claim 3, Zhamu discloses the composite cathode material of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the particles of the cathode material are arranged in the gel polymer electrolyte such that they are substantially homogenously dispersed throughout the gel polymer electrolyte (see [0088] “The pre-incorporation of electrolyte (e.g. non-aqueous liquid electrolyte or polymer gel electrolyte) in the wet electrodes prior to being laminated into a cell enables and ensures good wetting and mixing of active materials with the electrolyte, thereby avoiding the formation of dry spots (electrolyte-deficient spots) in the cell” and mixing reads on homogeneously dispersed).
Regarding claim 5, Zhamu discloses the composite cathode material of claim 1 and further disclose wherein the gel polymer electrolyte comprises polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) (see [0074] “cathode layer is composed of particles of a cathode active material” & “PVDF”).
Regarding claim 6, Zhamu discloses the composite cathode material of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the gel polymer electrolyte comprises LiPF6 (see [0136] “LiPF6”).
Regarding claim 7, Zhamu discloses the composite cathode material of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the gel polymer electrolyte comprises propylene carbonate (PC) (see [0171] “propylene carbonate (PC)”).
Regarding claim 8, Zhamu discloses the composite cathode material of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the particles of the cathode material comprise lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2) (see [0153] “cathode active materials” & “LiCoO2 particles”).
Regarding claim 10, Zhamu discloses the composite cathode material of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the composite cathode material is porous (see [0122] “cathode active material” & “porous”).
Regarding claim 17, Zhamu discloses the cathode material of claim 1 and further discloses a laminate electrochemical cell (see [0026] “laminated electrochemical cell”) comprising: an anode layer; and a composite cathode layer (see abstract “anode electrode” & “cathode active material” & “depositing” & “onto a surface” which reads on layer).
Regarding claim 18, Zhamu discloses the laminate electrochemical cell of claim 17 and further discloses further comprising a gel polymer electrolyte layer arranged between the anode layer and the composite cathode layer (see abstract “polymer gel electrolyte” & “depositing” & “onto a surface of a cathode current collector to form a cathode electrode” reads on composite cathode layer; see [0088] “layer of counter electrode 316” & “multi-layer laminate” & “anode and a cathode” & see FIG. 1(C) & see [0086] “308 wet active material mixture”).
Regarding claim 21, Zhamu discloses the laminate electrochemical cell of claim 17 and further discloses wherein the anode layer comprises graphite (see [0022] “anode layer” & see [0057] “electrode layer” & “graphite”).
Regarding claim 26, Zhamu discloses a battery stack (see [0078] “stack”) comprising a plurality of laminate electrochemical cells, each cell comprising: a first current collector (see [0026] “laminated electrochemical cell”; see abstract “anode electrode” & “cathode active material” & “cathode current collector”); a composite cathode layer arranged on a surface of the first current collector, the composite cathode layer comprising a gel polymer electrolyte and particles of a cathode material, the particles of the cathode material being arranged in the gel polymer electrolyte (see [0025] “combining the cathode electrode or a portion thereof and the wet anode electrode or a portion thereof to form an electrochemical cell”; see abstract “cathode active material” & “polymer gel electrolyte” & “dispersed in”; see [0153] “wet anode active mixture and cathode active mixtures were delivered to surfaces of graphite foams for forming an anode layer and a cathode layer”); a second current collector (see [0026] “anode current collector”); and an anode layer arranged on a surface of the second current collector (see [0153] “wet anode active mixture and cathode active mixtures were delivered to surfaces of graphite foams for forming an anode layer and a cathode layer”).
Regarding claim 27, Zhamu discloses the battery stack of claim 26 and further discloses wherein the plurality of electrochemical cells comprises a first electrochemical cell and a second electrochemical cell, configured such that the first current collector of the first cell is also the first current collector of the second cell (see [0026] “multi-layer laminated electrochemical cell” & “anode current collector” & “cathode current collector”).
Regarding claim 28, Zhamu discloses the laminate electrochemical cell of claim 17 and further discloses an electrically-powered device (see [0004] “energy storage device for electric vehicle (EV)”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu et al. (US 20190067732 A1, “Zhamu”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhamu et al. (US 20190051904 A1, “Zhamu2”).
Regarding claim 4, Zhamu discloses the composite cathode material of claim 1. Zhamu does not explicitly disclose wherein the gel polymer electrolyte is obtainable from a UV-crosslinkable gel polymer electrolyte precursor.
Zhamu2 teaches “UV irradiated” & “to produce a gelled product” (see [0133]) & teaches “high-elasticity polymer” (see [0140]) & “cast onto a glass surface to form several films which were polymerized and cured to obtain cross-linked polymers having different degrees of cross-linking” (see [0141]). Zhamu2 teaches “overall the high-elasticity polymer protection strategy provides the most effective protection, enabling not only the highest reversible capacity but also the most stable cycling behavior” (see [0143]).
Zhamu and Zhamu2 are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely polymer gel electrolyte (see Zhamu2 [0065]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate UV crosslinkable gel polymer as suggested by Zhamu2 (see [0133] & [0141]) into the composite cathode material of Zhamu because doing so provides protection and “most stable cycling behavior” as suggested by Zhamu2 (see [1043]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu et al. (US 20190067732 A1, “Zhamu”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tatsumi et al. (US 20100196761 A1, “Tatsumi”).
Regarding claim 9, Zhamu discloses the composite cathode material of claim 1 and further discloses “LiCoO2 nanoparticles as the cathode active material” (see [0200]). Zhamu does not explicitly disclose wherein the particles of the cathode material have an average particle size of less than 0.1 µm.
Tatsumi teaches particle size (see [0034] “average particle size of primary particles” & “more preferably at most 0.3 µm”).
Zhamu and Tatsumi are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely gel polymer electrolyte (see Tatsumi [0074]).
Tatsumi teaches a range of at most 0.3 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of less than 0.1 µm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “at most 0.3 µm”, as suggested by Tatsumi into the composite cathode material of Zhamu because doing so is preferable, as suggested by Tatsumi (see [0034]).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu et al. (US 20190067732 A1, “Zhamu”) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 20190348705 A1, “Chen”).
Regarding claim 19 and claim 20, Zhamu discloses the laminate electrochemical cell of claim 17. Zhamu does not explicitly disclose further comprising a ceramic layer arranged between the anode layer and the composite cathode layer, as required by claim 19 nor wherein the ceramic layer comprises lithium phosphorous oxy-nitride (LiPON), as required by claim 20.
Chen teaches “ceramic material can be deposited onto the solid-state electrolyte material sheet” & “a LiPON layer can be used to separate the solvent electrolyte from the anode 120 and the cathode 110” (see [0073]). Chen teaches “the deposition of such a glass or ceramic coating onto the solid-state electrolyte material sheet may prevent solvent diffusion, e.g., solvent anolyte diffusion, through the solid-state electrolyte material sheet” (see [0073]).
Zhamu and Chen are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely gel polymer electrolyte (see Chen [0071]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate ceramic layer as suggested by Chen (see [0073]) into the laminate electrochemical cell of Zhamu because doing so “prevent[s] solvent diffusion”, as suggested by Chen (see [0073]).
Further regarding claim 20, Zhamu does not explicitly disclose LiPON.
Chen teaches “LiPON layer” & “gel polymer electrolyte sheet” (see [0073]) & “the diffusion preventing material can include lithium phosphorus oxy-nitride (LiPON)” (see [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate LiPON as suggested by Chen (see [0073]) into the laminate electrochemical cell of Zhamu because doing so prevents diffusion, as suggested by Chen (see [0074]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 17 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. US 20230411701 A1 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US 20230411701 A1 discloses a laminate electrochemical cell.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 21 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of copending Application No. US 20230411701 A1 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US 20230411701 A1 discloses a laminate electrochemical cell wherein the anode layer comprises silicon, carbon (optionally as graphite, graphene, activated carbon and/or carbon black), indium tin oxide (ITO), molybdenum dioxide (MoO2), lithium titanate (Li2TiO3), lithium alloy, metallic lithium, copper, or combinations thereof.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 27 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 28 of copending Application No. US 20230411701 A1 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US 20230411701 A1 discloses a battery stack wherein the plurality of electrochemical cells comprises a first electrochemical cell and a second electrochemical cell, configured such that the first current collector of the first cell is also the first current collector of the second cell.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.A.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
04/29/2026
Prosecution Insights