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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 3, 2026 has been entered.
Summary
Currently, claims 1, 5, 13, 20, and 21 are amended and claim 22 is new, resulting in claims 1-22 pending for examination.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 3, “the ether small molecule solvent” is interpreted as requiring the solvent comprise more than one solvent, as claimed in instant claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, claims 20 and 21 recite the limitation “wherein each member in the first group has an ability to dissolve alkali metal”. The instant disclosure does not appear to provide support for each member of the first group having an ability to dissolve alkali metal, rather the instant specification (filed October 20, 2022) provides support for the liquid-state or gel-state inner layer having an ability to dissolve alkali metal due to a synergistic effect resulting from the presence of first group and second group compounds (instant specification [0006], [0009], [0015], [0016], [0017], [0019], [0032], [0035], [0043]).
It is noted that the originally filed claim set dated October 20, 2022 does not include the limitation “wherein each member in the first group has an ability to dissolve alkali metal” in claims 20 and 21.
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.
Claim 6 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 6 recites the limitation "the polyurethane polymer" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11-14, 16-18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (Wang, X., et al. A polyacrylonitrile (PAN)-based double-layer multifunctional gel polymer electrolyte for lithium-sulfur batteries. Journal of Membrane Science. 582, 37-47. Available online March 20, 2019) in view of Wu (Wu, H.L., et al. Thiol-based electrolyte additives for high-performance lithium-sulfur batteries. Nano Energy. 32, 50-58. 2017).
Regarding claims 1-2, Wang teaches a metal negative electrode comprising:
A metal negative electrode body (Li anode, Wang Fig. 1)
A protective layer formed on a surface of one side of the metal negative electrode body, wherein the protective layer comprises a double-layer structure (PPL and PL, Wang Fig. 1)
Wherein the double-layer structure comprises a liquid-state or gel-state inner layer (PPL, Wang Fig. 1) and a solid-state outer layer that has an ionic conductivity (PL, Wang Fig. 1; “the high ionic conductivity layer PL” pg. 38 left column).
Wherein the liquid-state or gel-state inner layer comprises a polyether polymer having an ability to complex lithium ions (PEO, Wang pg. 38 left column 2.1 Preparation of PPL-PL electrolyte).
Wang does not teach the liquid-state or gel-state inner layer comprising a member selected from those recited in the “first group” of instant claim 1.
Wu teaches lithium sulfur batteries (Wu abstract), as taught in Wang (Wang title), comprising electrolytes containing biphenyl-4,4-dithiol (BPD) to enhance capacity retention by controlling polysulfide dissolution (Wu abstract, BPD is a biphenyl compound).
Since Wu teaches that BPD can improve capacity retention of lithium sulfur batteries, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add BPD, which has an ability to accept an electron, to the liquid-state or gel-state inner layer of Wang in order to improve capacity retention.
Modified Wang teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach the liquid-state or gel-state inner layer having the ability to dissolve alkali metal. It is reasonable to presume that the teach the liquid-state or gel-state inner layer having the ability to dissolve alkali metal is inherent to modified Wang. Support for said presumption is found in that the instant specification states "the liquid-state or gel-state inner layer can dissolve alkali metal in a physical manner by using a synergistic effect of different solvents/polymers" (instant specification [6]) and that the inner layer includes "an aromatic hydrocarbon small molecule compound or a polymer containing an aromatic hydrocarbon group that has an ability to accept an electron", with biphenyl being an example of this compound, and "an ether amine, or thioether small molecule solvent or a polyether, polyamine, or polythioether polymer that has an ability to complex lithium ions, with polyethylene oxide being an example of this compound (instant specification [6-8]). The inner layer in modified Wang includes an aromatic hydrocarbon small molecule comprising a biphenyl compound and polyethylene oxide.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 3, Wang in view of Wu teaches all feature of claim 1, as described above. Claim 3 does not affirmatively require the “at least one member” selected from the “second group” of claim 1 be “the ether small molecule solvent”. Therefore, modified Wang reads on claim 3, as the claim does not further limit the species taught by Wang.
Regarding claim 4, Wang in view of Wu teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Wang further teaches the polyether polymer comprising polyethylene oxide (PEO, Wang pg. 38 left column 2.1 Preparation of PPL-PL electrolyte).
Regarding claims 5-6, Wang in view of Wu teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Wang further teaches the liquid-state or gel-state inner layer further comprising a polynitrile polymer (PAN in first solution corresponding to PPL, Wang pg. 38 left column 2.1 Preparation of PPL-PL electrolyte).
Regarding claims 7-8, Wang in view of Wu teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Wang further teaches the solid-state outer layer comprising an oxide solid electrolyte comprising a sodium fast ionic conductor solid electrolyte (LATP, abstract, Wang pg. 38 left column 2.1 Preparation of PPL-PL electrolyte).
Regarding claim 9, Wang in view of Wu teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Wang further teaches the solid-state outer layer further comprising a polynitrile polymer (PAN in the second solution corresponding to PL, Wang pg. 38 left column 2.1 Preparation of PPL-PL electrolyte).
Regarding claim 11, Wang in view of Wu teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Wang further teaches the metal negative electrode body comprising a lithium negative electrode (Li anode, Wang Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Wang in view of Wu teaches all features of claims 1 and 11, as described above. Claim 12 does not affirmatively require the “metal negative electrode body” of claim 11 be a “lithium alloy negative electrode”.
Regarding claims 13 and 16, Wang teaches a method of making a metal negative electrode (Wang Fig. 1 wherein the negative electrode is the Li anode + PPL + PL) comprising:
Forming a protective layer on a surface of one side of a metal negative electrode body (Wang Fig. 1, PPL + PL formed on Li foil anode (metal negative electrode body))
wherein the protective layer comprises a double-layer structure (PPL and PL, Wang Fig. 1)
Wherein the double-layer structure comprises a liquid-state or gel-state inner layer that has an ability to dissolve alkali metal (PPL, Wang Fig. 1) and a solid-state outer layer that has a high ionic conductivity (PL, Wang Fig. 1; “the high ionic conductivity layer PL” pg. 38 left column).
Wherein the liquid-state or gel-state inner layer comprises a polyether polymer having an ability to complex lithium ions (PEO, Wang pg. 38 left column 2.1 Preparation of PPL-PL electrolyte).
Wang does not teach the liquid-state or gel-state inner layer comprising a member selected from those recited in the “first group” of instant claim 1.
Wu teaches lithium sulfur batteries (Wu abstract), as taught in Wang (Wang title), comprising electrolytes containing biphenyl-4,4-dithiol (BPD) to enhance capacity retention by controlling polysulfide dissolution (Wu abstract, BPD is a biphenyl compound).
Since Wu teaches that BPD can improve capacity retention of lithium sulfur batteries, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add BPD, which has an ability to accept an electron, to the liquid-state or gel-state inner layer of Wang in order to improve capacity retention.
Modified Wang teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach the liquid-state or gel-state inner layer having the ability to dissolve alkali metal. It is reasonable to presume that the teach the liquid-state or gel-state inner layer having the ability to dissolve alkali metal is inherent to modified Wang. Support for said presumption is found in that the instant specification states "the liquid-state or gel-state inner layer can dissolve alkali metal in a physical manner by using a synergistic effect of different solvents/polymers" (instant specification [6]) and that the inner layer includes "an aromatic hydrocarbon small molecule compound or a polymer containing an aromatic hydrocarbon group that has an ability to accept an electron", with biphenyl being an example of this compound, and "an ether amine, or thioether small molecule solvent or a polyether, polyamine, or polythioether polymer that has an ability to complex lithium ions, with polyethylene oxide being an example of this compound (instant specification [6-8]). The inner layer in modified Wang includes an aromatic hydrocarbon small molecule comprising a biphenyl compound and polyethylene oxide.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 14, Wang in view of Wu teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Wang further teaches after coating the liquid-state or gel-state inner layer, forming the solid-state outer layer on the liquid-state or gel-state inner layer (Wang pg. 38 “the PL layer was prepared via casting the second slurry on the first PPL electrolyte membrane).
Regarding claim 17, Wang in view of Wu teaches all features of claim 13, as described above. Wang further teaches the polyether polymer comprising polyethylene oxide (PEO, Wang pg. 38 left column 2.1 Preparation of PPL-PL electrolyte).
Regarding claim 18, Wang in view of Wu teaches all features of claim 13, as described above. Wang further teaches the liquid-state or gel-state inner layer further comprising a polynitrile polymer (PAN in first solution corresponding to PPL, Wang pg. 38 left column 2.1 Preparation of PPL-PL electrolyte).
Regarding claim 22, Wang in view of Wu teaches all features of claim 13, as described above.
Modified Wang teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach the liquid-state or gel-state inner layer being configured to dissolve freshly formed alkali-metal dendrites during charging or discharging. It is reasonable to presume that the teach the liquid-state or gel-state inner layer being capable of dissolving freshly formed alkali-metal dendrites during charging or discharging is inherent to modified Wang. Support for said presumption is found in that the instant specification states "the liquid-state or gel-state inner layer can dissolve alkali metal in a physical manner by using a synergistic effect of different solvents/polymers" (instant specification [6]) and that the inner layer includes "an aromatic hydrocarbon small molecule compound or a polymer containing an aromatic hydrocarbon group that has an ability to accept an electron", with biphenyl being an example of this compound, and "an ether amine, or thioether small molecule solvent or a polyether, polyamine, or polythioether polymer that has an ability to complex lithium ions, with polyethylene oxide being an example of this compound (instant specification [6-8]). The inner layer in modified Wang includes an aromatic hydrocarbon small molecule comprises a biphenyl compound and polyethylene oxide.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Wu, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Ogasa (US 20120237834 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Wang in view of Wu teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Wang further teaches the double-layer structure (PL + PPL, Wang Fig. 1) having a thickness of “roughly 20 µm” (Wang pg. 39 right column first paragraph). Wang is silent regarding the thickness of the solid-state outer layer (PL, Wang Fig. 1).
Ogasa teaches a solid state secondary battery wherein the solid-state electrolyte layer is “most preferably 1 to 20 µm” (Ogasa [115]). Ogasa further teaches that the solid electrolyte layer should be as thin as possible, as long as the thickness is sufficient to electrically separation the negative and positive electrode and provide adequate mechanical strength (Ogasa [115]).
Since Ogasa teaches that a thickness of 1 to 20 µm is suitable for a solid electrolyte layer, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the thickness of the solid-state outer layer, including a thickness within the range disclosed by Ogasa of 1-20 µm, in order to obtain a solid electrolyte layer capable of electrically separating a negative and positive electrode and having adequate mechanical strength.
The solid-state outer layer thickness range of Ogasa substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 10. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Ogasa, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Wu, as applied to claim 13 above, and in further view of Zhang (US 2021/0167420 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Wang in view of Wu teaches all features of claim 13, as described above. Wang does not teach, after compounding the metal negative electrode body with the solid-state outer layer, injecting at least one member selected from the third group of instant claim 15 and at least one member selected from the fourth groups of instant claim 15 into an interlayer between the metal negative electrode body and the solid-state outer layer to form the liquid-state or gel-state inner layer.
Zhang teaches a metal negative electrode comprising a protective layer comprising a double-layer structure (Zhang Fig. 5). Zhang further teaches that layers may be a liquid or a gel (Zhang [135]) and that a ceramic layer may be impregnated with gel or polymer electrolyte (Zhang [144]). Zhang further teaches that layers may be formed directly on the surface of the anode (Zhang [175]).
Since Zhang teaches that it is known and suitable to form layers directly on the anode surface and that a ceramic layer may be impregnated with gel or polymer electrolyte, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Wang in view of Wu to include the step of injecting at least one member selected from the third group of instant claim 15 and at least one member selected from the fourth group of instant claim 15 (the inner layer of instant claim 13) into an interlayer between the metal negative electrode body and the solid-state outer layer, after compounding the metal negative electrode body with the solid-state outer layer, in order to achieve the predictable result of a metal negative electrode containing a protective layer comprising a double-layer structure. Additionally, the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Wu, as applied to claims 13-14 above, and in further view of Rossoll (US 5089027 A).
Regarding claim 19, Wang in view of Wu teaches all features of claims 13-14, as described above. Wang further teaches the coating performed using scape coating (Wang pg. 38 left column, “first slurry was scraped on”). Wang is silent regarding the conditions of the room or atmospheric conditions during coating.
Rossoll teaches a solid electrolyte cell comprising a polymer electrolyte (Rossoll abstract) and further teaches that the moisture in an electrolyte film should be tuned to ensure adequate mechanical properties and prevent undesired reactions within the assembled battery cell due to high water content (Rossoll [17]). Rossoll teaches that a dry room having a controlled temperature and humidity atmosphere can be used to control moisture (Rossoll [17]).
Since Rossoll teaches that the moisture content of electrolyte films should be controlled and that it can be controlled using a dry room, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the coating in a dry room in order to ensure adequate mechanical properties and prevent undesired reactions within an assembled battery due to high water content.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Wu and Zhang.
Regarding claim 20, Wang teaches a secondary battery (Wang Fig. 1) comprising:
A positive electrode (cathode, Wang Fig. 1)
An electrolyte (commercial LE, Wang pg. 38 right column first paragraph)
A negative electrode wherein the negative electrode comprises a metal negative electrode (Li anode + PPL + PL, Wang Fig. 1)
Wherein the metal negative electrode comprises:
A metal negative electrode body (Li anode, Wang Fig. 1)
A protective layer formed on a surface of one side of the metal negative electrode body, wherein the protective layer comprises a double-layer structure (PPL and PL, Wang Fig. 1)
Wherein the double-layer structure comprises a liquid-state or gel-state inner layer (PPL, Wang Fig. 1) and a solid-state outer layer that has an ionic conductivity (PL, Wang Fig. 1; “the high ionic conductivity layer PL” pg. 38 left column).
Wherein the liquid-state or gel-state inner layer comprises a polyether polymer having an ability to complex lithium ions (PEO, Wang pg. 38 left column 2.1 Preparation of PPL-PL electrolyte).
Wang does not teach the liquid-state or gel-state inner layer comprising a member selected from those recited in the “first group” of instant claim 1.
Wu teaches lithium sulfur batteries (Wu abstract), as taught in Wang (Wang title), comprising electrolytes containing biphenyl-4,4-dithiol (BPD) to enhance capacity retention by controlling polysulfide dissolution (Wu abstract, BPD is a biphenyl compound).
Since Wu teaches that BPD can improve capacity retention of lithium sulfur batteries, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add BPD, which has an ability to accept an electron, to the liquid-state or gel-state inner layer of Wang in order to improve capacity retention.
Modified Wang teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach the liquid-state or gel-state inner layer having the ability to dissolve alkali metal. It is reasonable to presume that the teach the liquid-state or gel-state inner layer having the ability to dissolve alkali metal is inherent to modified Wang. Support for said presumption is found in that the instant specification states "the liquid-state or gel-state inner layer can dissolve alkali metal in a physical manner by using a synergistic effect of different solvents/polymers" (instant specification [6]) and that the inner layer includes "an aromatic hydrocarbon small molecule compound or a polymer containing an aromatic hydrocarbon group that has an ability to accept an electron", with biphenyl being an example of this compound, and "an ether amine, or thioether small molecule solvent or a polyether, polyamine, or polythioether polymer that has an ability to complex lithium ions, with polyethylene oxide being an example of this compound (instant specification [6-8]). The inner layer in modified Wang includes an aromatic hydrocarbon small molecule comprising a biphenyl compound and polyethylene oxide.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01.
Wang does not teach the secondary battery comprising a diaphragm.
Zhang teaches a secondary battery (battery, Zhang [42-48]) comprising a positive electrode (cathode, Zhang [42-48]), a negative electrode (lithium metal anode, Zhang [42-48]) having a double layer protective structure (anode interface layer + solid state electrolyte, Zhang [42-48]), as taught by Wang, and a diaphragm (cathode interface layer, Zhang [42-48]). Zhang teaches that the cathode interface layer acts “as a shock absorber between the SSE and a cathode material that is softer than the SSE” (Zhang [2]) or “may improve ionic conductance between the SSE and the cathode” (Zhang [2]).
Since Zhang teaches that a cathode interface layer may be added to absorb shock between a cathode material and solid state electrolyte or improve ionic conductance between the SSE and the cathode, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a diaphragm (cathode interface layer) to the secondary battery of Wang in view of Wu in order to absorb shock between the SSE and the cathode material and/or improve ionic conductance.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Wu, Zhang, and Takezawa (US 20110026207 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Wang in view of Wu and Zhang teaches the secondary battery of claim 21, as described above for claim 20. Wang does not teach a terminal.
Fig. 1 of Takezawa teaches a terminal (cell phone 1) comprising a housing (package 10), a circuit mainboard accommodated in the housing (circuit board 23), a display apparatus mounted on the housing and connected to the circuit mainboard (image display portion 20), and a secondary battery (secondary battery 13).
Since Takezawa teaches a terminal comprises a housing, circuit mainboard, a display apparatus, and a secondary battery, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the secondary battery of Wang in view of Wu and Zhang, as described above for instant claim 20, to the terminal of Takezawa in order to obtain an operational terminal with display capability.
Response to Arguments
Response – Specification Objections
The objection to the amendment filed November 26, 2025 under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure is overcome by applicant’s amendments to the abstract in the response filed April 3, 2026. This objection is withdrawn.
Response – Drawings Objections
The objections to the drawings received on November 26, 2025 due to noncompliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are overcome by applicant’s drawings filed March 5, 2026.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement are overcome by applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 5, 13, 20, and 21 in the response filed April 3, 2026. These rejections to claims 1-21 are withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments filed April 3, 2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On page 12 of the response, Applicant appears to allege Wang does not teach dissolving alkali metals and that dissolving alkali metal salts is fundamentally different than dissolving alkali metal in elemental form. On page 13 of the response, Applicant appears to allege that Wu “does not disclose that BPD dissolves alkali metal in its elemental form, nor that BPD forms a liquid-state or gel-state inner layer on a metal negative electrode that dissolves alkali metal”.
These arguments are not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The rejection is based on a combination of the teachings of Wang and Wu to arrive at the claimed inner layer capable of dissolving alkali metal. The instant specification states "the liquid-state or gel-state inner layer can dissolve alkali metal in a physical manner by using a synergistic effect of different solvents/polymers" (instant specification [6]). The instant specification further states that the inner layer includes "an aromatic hydrocarbon small molecule compound or a polymer containing an aromatic hydrocarbon group that has an ability to accept an electron", with biphenyl being an example of this compound, and "an ether amine, or thioether small molecule solvent or a polyether, polyamine, or polythioether polymer that has an ability to complex lithium ions, with polyethylene oxide being an example of this compound (instant specification [6-8]). The inner layer in the modified metal negative electrode of Wang in view of Wu includes an aromatic hydrocarbon small molecule comprising a biphenyl compound and polyethylene oxide.
Applicant has not provided evidence or remarks that the inner layer of the modified metal negative electrode of Wang in view of Wu is not capable of dissolving alkali metal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Skotheim (US 2010/0104948 A1): appears to disclose an anode with protective layers (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/J.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights