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 .
Claim Status
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on March 27th, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1, 5, and 8 are amended and claims 10-11 are nonelected, resulting in claims 1-9 pending for examination.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed March 27th, 2026 have been entered.
Applicant’s amendments of claims 5 and 8 have overcome the claim objection forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed December 29th, 2025.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-9 with respect to the optional second reactive component has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments submitted March 27th, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 7-9 are 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.
Regarding claim 7, the instant claim recites “the second monomer comprises any one or more selected from the group consisting of: ether compound, ether segment-containing oligomer, and siloxane.” For the purposes of examination, any monomer comprising an ether group is understood to be the second monomer comprising an ether compound. It is further unclear how an ether-segment containing oligomer may be considered a monomer, as oligomers are known to comprise repeating monomer units. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 8-9, they are rejected based on their dependence on a previously rejected claim.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duan (Non-Patent Literature, “Extended Electrochemical Window of Solid Electrolytes via Heterogeneous Multilayered Structure for High-Voltage Lithium Metal Batteries”).
Regarding claim 1, Duan teaches a solid-state battery with a multilayer electrolyte, wherein the multilayer electrolyte comprises an oxidation-resistant polymer layer on the positive electrode (oxidation tolerant poly(acrylonitrile) (PAN) polymer in contact with the cathode) and a reduction-resistant polymer layer on a negative electrode (reduction tolerant polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA) in contact with the anode) (Abstract). As the PEGDA is taught by Duan to be prepared by in situ polymerization (Page 1807789, Column 1, Paragraph 1), the solid-state battery of Duan meets the structural requirements of an in-situ polymerized solid-state battery, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Claim 1 is a product-by-process claim, as the limitation “the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayer electrolyte is prepared according to the following steps:
A) mixing a first preset component with a positive electrode slurry and coating to obtain a composite positive electrode; mixing a second preset component with a negative electrode slurry and coating to obtain a composite negative electrode;
B) assembling a battery cell with the composite positive electrode and composite negative electrode;
C) injecting an electrolyte solution into the battery cell to initiate the polymerization of monomers to form a multilayer electrolyte
wherein the electrolyte solution comprises a first reactive component and a second reactive component; and the first preset component chemically reacts with the first reactive component in the electrolyte solution to generate an oxidation-resistant polymer; and the second preset component chemically reacts with the second reactive component in the electrolyte solution to generate a reduction-resistant polymer” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces structural features of the product.
Although Duan does not explicitly teach the aforementioned method limitations, it is noted that “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process”. Further, “the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, See MPEP 2113.
The structure resulting from the method of producing the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery described above, as claimed, is:
an in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayered electrolyte, wherein the multilayer electrolyte comprises an oxidation-resistant polymer layer formed on the positive electrode and a reduction-resistant polymer layer formed on a negative electrode
wherein the oxidation-resistant polymer layer formed on the positive electrode comprises an oxidation-resistant polymer
wherein the reduction-resistant polymer layer formed on the negative electrode comprises a reduction-resistant polymer
Duan teaches a heterogenous multilayered solid electrolyte, wherein an oxidation resistant PAN polymer electrolyte layer is in contact with the cathode and a reduction tolerant PEGDA electrolyte layer is formed in contact with the anode (Abstract).
Thus, the teachings of Duan read on the structural limitations of the claim. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Duan teaches a layered electrolyte formed in a solid-state battery with an oxidation-resistant and reduction-resistant polymer layers formed on the positive electrode and negative electrode, respectively.
Regarding claim 2, Duan teaches the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayer electrolyte according to claim 1.
As discussed above, the limitation of claim 1 directed toward “the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayer electrolyte is prepared according to the following steps:
A) mixing a first preset component with a positive electrode slurry and coating to obtain a composite positive electrode; mixing a second preset component with a negative electrode slurry and coating to obtain a composite negative electrode”
is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces structural features of the product.
Thus, the instant claim limitations directed toward “the mass fraction of the first preset component in the positive electrode slurry is 0.01-35%; and the mass fraction of the second preset component in the negative electrode slurry is 0.01-35%” are also considered method limitations because they are directed toward the composition of the positive and negative electrode slurries which are used in the method described above to form the positive and negative electrodes, respectively. Thus, the instant claim is also considered a product by process claim, as it further limits the method disclosed in claim 1.
As discussed above Duan teaches the structure resulting from the method of producing the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery described above, as claimed, including:
an in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayered electrolyte, wherein the multilayer electrolyte comprises an oxidation-resistant polymer (poly(acrylonitrile) (PAN)) layer formed on the positive electrode and a reduction-resistant polymer layer (polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA)) formed on a negative electrode
wherein the oxidation-resistant polymer layer formed on the positive electrode comprises an oxidation-resistant polymer (PAN)
wherein the reduction-resistant polymer layer formed on the negative electrode comprises a reduction-resistant polymer (PEGDA).
Thus, the teachings of Duan read on the structural limitations of the claim. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Duan teaches a layered electrolyte formed in a solid-state battery with an oxidation-resistant and reduction-resistant polymer layers formed on the positive electrode and negative electrode, respectively.
Regarding claim 3, Duan teaches the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayer electrolyte according to claim 1.
As discussed above, the limitation of claim 1 directed toward “the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayer electrolyte is prepared according to the following steps:
C) injecting an electrolyte solution into the battery cell to initiate the polymerization of monomers to form a multilayer electrolyte; wherein the electrolyte solution comprises a first reactive component and a second reactive component;”
is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces structural features of the product.
Thus, the instant claim limitations directed toward “the mass fraction of the first reactive component in the electrolyte solution is 0.01-50%; and the mass fraction of the second reactive component in the electrolyte solution is 0.01-50%” are also considered method limitations because they are directed toward the composition of the electrolyte solution used in the method described above. Thus, the instant claim is also considered a product by process claim, as it further limits the method disclosed in claim 1.
As discussed above Duan teaches the structure resulting from the method of producing the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery described above, as claimed, including:
an in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayered electrolyte, wherein the multilayer electrolyte comprises an oxidation-resistant polymer (poly(acrylonitrile) (PAN)) layer formed on the positive electrode and a reduction-resistant polymer layer (polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA)) formed on a negative electrode
wherein the oxidation-resistant polymer layer formed on the positive electrode comprises an oxidation-resistant polymer (PAN)
wherein the reduction-resistant polymer layer formed on the negative electrode comprises a reduction-resistant polymer (PEGDA).
Thus, the teachings of Duan read on the structural limitations of the claim. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Duan teaches a layered electrolyte formed in a solid-state battery with an oxidation-resistant and reduction-resistant polymer layers formed on the positive electrode and negative electrode, respectively.
Regarding claim 4, Duan teaches the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayer electrolyte according to claim 1.
As the first preset component is a feature of the mixing of the positive electrode slurry in step A) of the method of claim 1 described above, the instant claim is also considered a product by process claim, as it further limits the method disclosed in claim 1.
The structure resulting from the method of producing the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery as described above wherein the first preset component is a first monomer or a first initiator having an identity as claimed, is:
the oxidation-resistant polymer layer formed on the positive electrode comprises any one or more monomers selected from the group consisting of ester monomer, carbonate monomer, sulfone monomer, isocyanate monomer, amide monomer, nitrile monomer and fluorinated monomer.
As Duan teaches an oxidation tolerant poly(acrylonitrile) (PAN) polymer in contact with the cathode, Duan teaches the necessary structure of the polymer layer formed on the positive electrode comprising at least one nitrile monomer (acrylonitrile), meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 5, Duan teaches the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayer electrolyte according to claim 4.
As the first monomer (first preset component) is a feature of the mixing of the positive electrode slurry in step A) of the method of claim 1 described above, the instant claim is also considered a product by process claim, as it further limits the method disclosed in claims 1 and 4.
The structure resulting from the method of producing the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery as described above wherein the first preset component is a first monomer having an identity as claimed, is:
the oxidation-resistant polymer layer formed on the positive electrode comprises any one or more monomers selected from the group consisting of vinyl acetate, dimethyl allyldicarboxylate, diethyl allylmalonate, methallyl carbonate, 1,4-butanediol diacrylate, 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate, methyl methacrylate, butyl methacrylate, vinylene carbonate, vinylethylene carbonate, methylvinyl sulfone, ethylvinyl sulfone, vinyl acetate, 1,4-butylene glycol diol, polycarbonate diol, polyethylene glycol adipate diol, ethoxylated trimethylolpropane triacrylate, pentaerythritol triacrylate, pentaerythritol tetraacrylate, dipentaerythritol pentaacrylate, dipentaerythritol hexaacrylate, acrylamide, N,N-methylene diacrylamide, N-methylmaleic amide, N-ethylmaleic amide, caprolactam, butyrolactam, maleic anhydride, acrylonitrile, ethyl 2-cyanoacrylate, butyl 2-cyano-2-acrylate, isooctyl 2-nitrile-3,3-diphenylacrylate, 1-cyclohexene acetonitrile, hexafluorobutyl methacrylate, trifluoroethyl methacrylate, dihydroxyethyl terephthalate, toluene diisocyanate, diphenylmethane diisocyanate, isophorone diisocyanate, hexamethylene diisocyanate, and hexamethylene diisocyanate.
As Duan teaches an oxidation tolerant poly(acrylonitrile) (PAN) polymer in contact with the cathode, Duan teaches the necessary structure of the polymer layer formed on the positive electrode comprising at least one acrylonitrile monomer, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 6, Duan teaches the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayer electrolyte according to claim 4.
As the first initiator is not required by claim 4 (“the first preset component is a first monomer or a first initiator”), the instant limitation is met.
However, further discussed above, the first preset component is a feature of the mixing of the positive electrode slurry in step A) of the method of claim 1 described above, the instant claim is also considered a product by process claim, as it further limits the method disclosed in claims 1 and 4.
The structure resulting from the method of producing the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery as described above in claim 4 wherein the first preset component is a first monomer or a first initiator having an identity as claimed, is:
the oxidation-resistant polymer layer formed on the positive electrode comprises any one or more monomers selected from the group consisting of ester monomer, carbonate monomer, sulfone monomer, isocyanate monomer, amide monomer, nitrile monomer and fluorinated monomer.
As Duan teaches an oxidation tolerant poly(acrylonitrile) (PAN) polymer in contact with the cathode, Duan teaches the necessary structure of the polymer layer formed on the positive electrode comprising at least one nitrile monomer, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 7, Duan teaches the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayer electrolyte according to claim 1.
As the second preset component is a feature of the mixing of the negative electrode slurry in step A) of the method of claim 1 described above, the instant claim is also considered a product by process claim, as it further limits the method disclosed in claim 1.
The structure resulting from the method of producing the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery as described above wherein the second preset component is a second monomer or a second initiator having an identity as claimed, is:
the reduction-resistant polymer layer formed on the negative electrode comprises any one or more monomers selected from the group consisting of ether compound, ether segment-containing oligomer and siloxane.
As Duan teaches a reduction tolerant polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA) in contact with the anode, Duan teaches the necessary structure of the polymer layer formed on the negative electrode comprising at least one ether compound, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 8, Duan teaches the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayer electrolyte according to claim 7.
As the second monomer (second preset component) is a feature of the mixing of the negative electrode slurry in step A) of the method of claim 1 described above, the instant claim is also considered a product by process claim, as it further limits the method disclosed in claims 1 and 7.
The structure resulting from the method of producing the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery as described above wherein the second preset component is a second monomer having an identity as claimed, is:
the reduction-resistant polymer layer formed on the negative electrode comprises any one or more monomers selected from the group consisting of polyethylene glycol dimethacrylate, polyethylene glycol diacrylate, ethoxyethoxyethyl acrylate, polyethylene glycol, 1,3-dioxolane, dioxane, hydroxypolyether silicone oil, polytetrahydrofuran ether glycol, vinylmethoxysilane, ethyl 2-(trimethylsiloxy)methacrylate, trivinylcyclotrisiloxane, tris(2-methoxyethoxy)vinylsilane, octahydroxypropyldimethylsilyl-POSS, polyetheramine, and trihydroxymethylpropane triglycidyl ether.
As Duan teaches a reduction tolerant polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA) in contact with the anode, Duan teaches the necessary structure of the polymer layer formed on the negative electrode comprising at least monomer of polyethylene glycol diacrylate, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 9, Duan teaches the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayer electrolyte according to claim 1.
As the second initiator is not required by claim 7 (“the second preset component is a second monomer or a second initiator”), the instant limitation is met.
However, further discussed above, the second preset component is a feature of the mixing of the negative electrode slurry in step A) of the method of claim 1 described above, the instant claim is also considered a product by process claim, as it further limits the method disclosed in claims 1 and 7.
The structure resulting from the method of producing the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery as described above in claim 7 wherein the second preset component is a second monomer or a second initiator having an identity as claimed, is:
the reduction-resistant polymer layer formed on the negative electrode comprises any one or more monomers selected from the group consisting of ether compound, ether segment-containing oligomer and siloxane.
As Duan teaches a reduction tolerant polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA) in contact with the anode, Duan teaches the necessary structure of the polymer layer formed on the negative electrode comprising at least one ether compound, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (Chinese Patent Publication No. 110048158 A).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches an in-situ polymerized solid-state battery (Paragraph 7) with a multilayer (two-layer) electrolyte (Paragraph 9), wherein the multilayer electrolyte comprises an oxidation-resistant polymer layer (first polymer electrolyte layer) (Figure 1, Element 2) formed in-situ on the positive electrode and a reduction-resistant polymer layer (second polymer electrolyte layer) (Figure 1, Element 3) formed in-situ on a negative electrode (Paragraphs 11-15).
Claim 1 is a product-by-process claim, as the limitation “the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayer electrolyte is prepared according to the following steps:
A) mixing a first preset component with a positive electrode slurry and coating to obtain a composite positive electrode; mixing a second preset component with a negative electrode slurry and coating to obtain a composite negative electrode;
B) assembling a battery cell with the composite positive electrode and composite negative electrode;
C) injecting an electrolyte solution into the battery cell to initiate the polymerization of monomers to form a multilayer electrolyte
wherein the electrolyte solution comprises a first reactive component and a second reactive component; and the first preset component chemically reacts with the first reactive component in the electrolyte solution to generate an oxidation-resistant polymer; and the second preset component chemically reacts with the second reactive component in the electrolyte solution to generate a reduction-resistant polymer” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces structural features of the product.
Although Li does not explicitly teach the aforementioned method limitations, it is noted that “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process”. Further, “the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, See MPEP 2113.
The structure resulting from the method of producing the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery described above, as claimed, is:
an in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayered electrolyte, wherein the multilayer electrolyte comprises an oxidation-resistant polymer layer formed on the positive electrode and a reduction-resistant polymer layer formed on a negative electrode
wherein the oxidation-resistant polymer layer formed on the positive electrode comprises an oxidation-resistant polymer
wherein the reduction-resistant polymer layer formed on the negative electrode comprises a reduction-resistant polymer
Li teaches a double-layer polymer electrolyte membrane, wherein a first polymer electrolyte layer is formed on one side of the porous membrane skeleton through an in-situ polymerization method, and a second polymer electrolyte layer is formed on the other side of the porous membrane skeleton through an in-situ polymerization method (Paragraphs 9-12). Li teaches two different types of polymers are respectively used on both sides of the polymer electrolyte membrane (Paragraph 34), wherein the first polymer electrolyte layer is oxidation-resistant and the second polymer electrolyte layer is reduction resistant (Paragraph 15).
Thus, the teachings of Li read on the structural limitations of the claim. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Li teaches a layered electrolyte formed in a solid-state battery from the respective polymerization of different polymers to form oxidation-resistant and reduction-resistant layers of the electrolyte in-situ on the positive electrode and negative electrode, respectively.
Regarding claim 2, Li teaches the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayer electrolyte according to claim 1.
As discussed above, the limitation of claim 1 directed toward “the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayer electrolyte is prepared according to the following steps:
A) mixing a first preset component with a positive electrode slurry and coating to obtain a composite positive electrode; mixing a second preset component with a negative electrode slurry and coating to obtain a composite negative electrode”
is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces structural features of the product.
The instant claim limitations directed toward “the mass fraction of the first preset component in the positive electrode slurry is 0.01-35%; and the mass fraction of the second preset component in the negative electrode slurry is 0.01-35%” are also considered method limitations because they are directed toward the composition of the positive and negative electrode slurries which are used in the method described above to form the positive and negative electrodes, respectively. Thus, the instant claim is also considered a product by process claim, as it further limits the method disclosed in claim 1.
As discussed above, the teachings of Li discussed above teaches the structure resulting from the method of producing the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery described above, as claimed, including:
an in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayered electrolyte, wherein the multilayer electrolyte comprises an oxidation-resistant polymer layer formed on the positive electrode and a reduction-resistant polymer layer formed on a negative electrode
wherein the oxidation-resistant polymer layer formed on the positive electrode comprises an oxidation-resistant polymer
wherein the reduction-resistant polymer layer formed on the negative electrode comprises a reduction-resistant polymer (Paragraphs 10-15)
Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method. Thus, the teachings of Li read on the structural limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayer electrolyte according to claim 1.
As discussed above, the limitation of claim 1 directed toward “the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayer electrolyte is prepared according to the following steps:
C) injecting an electrolyte solution into the battery cell to initiate the polymerization of monomers to form a multilayer electrolyte; wherein the electrolyte solution comprises a first reactive component and a second reactive component;”
is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces structural features of the product.
Thus, the instant claim limitations directed toward “the mass fraction of the first reactive component in the electrolyte solution is 0.01-50%; and the mass fraction of the second reactive component in the electrolyte solution is 0.01-50%” are also considered method limitations because they are directed toward the composition of the electrolyte solution used in the method described above. Thus, the instant claim is also considered a product by process claim, as it further limits the method disclosed in claim 1.
As discussed above, the teachings of Li discussed above teaches the structure resulting from the method of producing the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery described above, as claimed, including:
an in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayered electrolyte, wherein the multilayer electrolyte comprises an oxidation-resistant polymer layer formed on the positive electrode and a reduction-resistant polymer layer formed on a negative electrode
wherein the oxidation-resistant polymer layer formed on the positive electrode comprises an oxidation-resistant polymer
wherein the reduction-resistant polymer layer formed on the negative electrode comprises a reduction-resistant polymer (Paragraphs 10-15)
Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method. Thus, the teachings of Li read on the structural limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 4, Li teaches the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayer electrolyte according to claim 1.
As the first preset component is a feature of the mixing of the positive electrode slurry in step A) of the method of claim 1 described above, the instant claim is also considered a product by process claim, as it further limits the method disclosed in claim 1.
The structure resulting from the method of producing the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery as described above wherein the first preset component is a first monomer or a first initiator having an identity as claimed, is:
the oxidation-resistant polymer layer formed on the positive electrode comprises any one or more monomers selected from the group consisting of ester monomer, carbonate monomer, sulfone monomer, isocyanate monomer, amide monomer, nitrile monomer and fluorinated monomer.
As Li teaches the first preset component is a first monomer (first polymerization monomer) comprising any one or more selected from the group consisting of: ester monomer (vinyl acetate, methyl acrylate), carbonate monomer (trithioethylene carbonate), sulfone monomer (ethyl vinyl sulfone), amide monomer (acrylamide), and nitrile monomer (acrylonitrile) (Paragraph 22), the instant claimed limitations are met.
However, in the event it is found that the identity of the first initiator imparts structural limitations to the oxidation-resistant polymer layer formed on the positive electrode, Li also teaches the first preset component is a first initiator (Paragraph 50).
As Li teaches the first preset component is a first initiator comprises any one or more selected from the group consisting of azo initiator (azobisisobutyronitrile, azobisisoheptanenitrile, dimethyl azobisisobutyrate) and peroxyl initiator (benzoyl peroxide, dibenzoyl peroxide, methyl ethyl ketone peroxide) (Paragraph 27), the instant claimed limitations are further met.
Regarding claim 5, Li teaches the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayer electrolyte according to claim 4.
As the first monomer (first preset component) is a feature of the mixing of the positive electrode slurry in step A) of the method of claim 1 described above, the instant claim is also considered a product by process claim, as it further limits the method disclosed in claims 1 and 4.
The structure resulting from the method of producing the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery as described above wherein the first preset component is a first monomer having an identity as claimed, is:
the oxidation-resistant polymer layer formed on the positive electrode comprises any one or more monomers selected from the group consisting of vinyl acetate, dimethyl allyldicarboxylate, diethyl allylmalonate, methallyl carbonate, 1,4-butanediol diacrylate, 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate, methyl methacrylate, butyl methacrylate, vinylene carbonate, vinylethylene carbonate, methylvinyl sulfone, ethylvinyl sulfone, vinyl acetate, 1,4-butylene glycol diol, polycarbonate diol, polyethylene glycol adipate diol, ethoxylated trimethylolpropane triacrylate, pentaerythritol triacrylate, pentaerythritol tetraacrylate, dipentaerythritol pentaacrylate, dipentaerythritol hexaacrylate, acrylamide, N,N-methylene diacrylamide, N-methylmaleic amide, N-ethylmaleic amide, caprolactam, butyrolactam, maleic anhydride, acrylonitrile, ethyl 2-cyanoacrylate, butyl 2-cyano-2-acrylate, isooctyl 2-nitrile-3,3-diphenylacrylate, 1-cyclohexene acetonitrile, hexafluorobutyl methacrylate, trifluoroethyl methacrylate, dihydroxyethyl terephthalate, toluene diisocyanate, diphenylmethane diisocyanate, isophorone diisocyanate, hexamethylene diisocyanate, and hexamethylene diisocyanate.
As Li teaches the first monomer comprises any one or more selected from the group consisting of vinyl acetate, ethylvinyl sulfone, acrylamide, and acrylonitrile (Paragraph 22), the instant claimed limitations are met.
Regarding claim 6, Li teaches the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayer electrolyte according to claim 4.
As discussed above, the first preset component is a feature of the mixing of the positive electrode slurry in step A) of the method of claim 1 described above, the instant claim is also considered a product by process claim, as it further limits the method disclosed in claims 1 and 4.
The structure resulting from the method of producing the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery as described above in claim 4 wherein the first preset component is a first monomer or a first initiator having an identity as claimed, is:
the oxidation-resistant polymer layer formed on the positive electrode comprises any one or more monomers selected from the group consisting of ester monomer, carbonate monomer, sulfone monomer, isocyanate monomer, amide monomer, nitrile monomer and fluorinated monomer.
As Li teaches an oxidation resistant polymer layer in contact with the positive electrode, Li teaches the necessary structure of the polymer layer formed on the positive electrode comprising at least one ester monomer (vinyl acetate, methyl acrylate), carbonate monomer (trithioethylene carbonate), sulfone monomer (ethyl vinyl sulfone), amide monomer (acrylamide), or nitrile monomer (acrylonitrile) (Paragraph 22), meeting the instant claimed limitations.
However, in the event it is found that the identity of the first initiator imparts structural limitations to the oxidation-resistant polymer layer formed on the positive electrode, Li also teaches the first preset component is a first initiator (Paragraph 50) comprising any one or more selected from the group consisting of azo initiator (azobisisobutyronitrile, azobisisoheptanenitrile, dimethyl azobisisobutyrate) and peroxyl initiator (benzoyl peroxide, dibenzoyl peroxide, methyl ethyl ketone peroxide) (Paragraph 27), the instant claimed limitations are further met.
Regarding claim 7, Li teaches the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayer electrolyte according to claim 1.
As the second preset component is a feature of the mixing of the negative electrode slurry in step A) of the method of claim 1 described above, the instant claim is also considered a product by process claim, as it further limits the method disclosed in claim 1.
The structure resulting from the method of producing the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery as described above wherein the second preset component is a second monomer or a second initiator having an identity as claimed, is:
the reduction-resistant polymer layer formed on the negative electrode comprises any one or more monomers selected from the group consisting of ether compound, ether segment-containing oligomer and siloxane.
As Li teaches the second preset component is a second monomer (second polymerization monomer) comprising any one or more selected from the group consisting of: ether compound (ethylene oxide, 1,3-propylene oxide, tetrahydrofurhan, tetrahydropyran, 1,3-dioxolane, 1,4-dioxane) (Paragraph 24), the instant claimed limitations are met.
However, in the event it is found that the identity of the second initiator imparts structural limitations to the reduction-resistant polymer layer formed on the negative electrode, Li also teaches the second preset component is a second initiator (Paragraph 52) comprising any one or more selected from the group consisting of azo initiator (azobisisobutyronitrile, azobisisoheptanenitrile, dimethyl azobisisobutyrate) and peroxyl initiator (benzoyl peroxide, dibenzoyl peroxide, methyl ethyl ketone peroxide) (Paragraph 27). Thus, the instant claimed limitations are further met.
Regarding claim 8, Li teaches the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayer electrolyte according to claim 7.
As the second monomer (second preset component) is a feature of the mixing of the negative electrode slurry in step A) of the method of claim 1 described above, the instant claim is also considered a product by process claim, as it further limits the method disclosed in claims 1 and 7.
The structure resulting from the method of producing the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery as described above in claim 7 wherein the second preset component is a second monomer having an identity as claimed, is:
the reduction-resistant polymer layer formed on the negative electrode comprises any one or more monomers selected from the group consisting of ether compound, ether segment-containing oligomer and siloxane.
As Li teaches the second monomer comprises any one or more selected from the group consisting of: 1,3-dioxolane, dioxane (1,4-dioxane) (Paragraph 24), the instant claimed limitations are met.
Regarding claim 9, Li teaches the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayer electrolyte according to claim 7.
As discussed above, the second preset component is a feature of the mixing of the negative electrode slurry in step A) of the method of claim 1 described above, the instant claim is also considered a product by process claim, as it further limits the method disclosed in claims 1 and 7.
The structure resulting from the method of producing the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery as described above in claim 7 wherein the second preset component is a second monomer or a second initiator having an identity as claimed, is:
the reduction-resistant polymer layer formed on the negative electrode comprises any one or more monomers selected from the group consisting of ether compound, ether segment-containing oligomer and siloxane.
As Li teaches a reduction-resistant polymer layer in contact with the negative electrode, Li teaches the necessary structure of the polymer layer formed on the negative electrode comprising at least one ether compound (ethylene oxide, 1,3-propylene oxide, tetrahydrofurhan, tetrahydropyran, 1,3-dioxolane, 1,4-dioxane) (Paragraph 24), meeting the instant claimed limitations.
However, in the event it is found that the identity of the second initiator imparts structural limitations to the reduction-resistant polymer layer formed on the negative electrode, Li also teaches the second preset component is a second initiator (Paragraph 50) comprising any one or more selected from the group consisting of azodiisobutyronitrile (azobisisobutyronitrile), azobisisoheptanenitrile, benzoyl peroxide, methylethyl ketone peroxide (Paragraph 27). Thus, the instant claimed limitations are further met.
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.
Claims 2-3 are alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claims 1-9 above.
Regarding claim 2, in the event that the mass fraction of the first preset component in the positive electrode slurry and the mass fraction of the second preset component in the negative electrode slurry is found to impart structural limitations to the claimed structure, Li teaches a mass fraction of the first preset component and the second preset component which overlap that of the instant claim.
As discussed above, Li teaches 1-90% of first polymerization monomer and 1-5% initiator present in the composition applied to form the in-situ polymerized oxidation-resistant polymer layer of the solid-state battery (Paragraphs 17 and 30). Further, Li teaches 1-90% of second polymerization monomer and 1-5% initiator present in the composition applied to form the in-situ polymerized reduction-resistant polymer layer of the solid-state battery (Paragraphs 19 and 30). The instant disclosure provides the first preset component may be the first monomer (first polymerization monomer of Li) or the first initiator (initiator of Li) (Page 8, Lines 10-12) and the second preset component may be the second monomer (first polymerization monomer of Li) or the second initiator (initiator of Li) (Page 10, Lines 11-13). Thus Li teaches suitable quantities of the first preset component (either monomer or initiator) and the second preset component (either monomer or initiator) in the solid-state battery which may be used to form the oxidation-resistant polymer layer and the reduction-resistant polymer layer, respectively.
The range of the first polymerization monomer and the range of the initiator of Li both overlap with the range of the first preset component of the instant claim. The range of the second polymerization monomer and the range of the initiator of Li both overlap with the range of the second preset component of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 3, in the event that the mass fraction of the first reactive component in the electrolyte solution and the mass fraction of the second reactive component in the negative electrode slurry is found to impart structural limitations to the claimed structure, Li teaches a mass fraction of the first reactive component and the second reactive component which overlap that of the instant claim.
As discussed above, Li teaches 1-90% of first polymerization monomer and 1-5% initiator present in the composition applied to form the in-situ polymerized oxidation-resistant polymer layer of the solid-state battery (Paragraphs 17 and 30). Further, Li teaches 1-90% of second polymerization monomer and 1-5% initiator present in the composition applied to form the in-situ polymerized reduction-resistant polymer layer of the solid-state battery (Paragraphs 19 and 30).
The instant disclosure provides the first reactive component may be the first monomer (first polymerization monomer of Li) or the first initiator (initiator of Li) (Page 11, Lines 1-10) and the second preset component may be the second monomer (first polymerization monomer of Li) or the second initiator (initiator of Li) (Page 11, Lines 10-20). Thus, Li teaches suitable quantities of the first reactive component (either monomer or initiator) and the second reactive component (either monomer or initiator) present in the solid-state battery which may be used to form the oxidation-resistant polymer layer and the reduction-resistant polymer layer, respectively.
The range of the first polymerization monomer and the range of the initiator of Li both overlap with the range of the first preset component of the instant claim. The range of the second polymerization monomer and the range of the initiator of Li both overlap with the range of the second preset component of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Cited Art Not Relied Upon
Xiang (Chinese Patent Publication No. 113258132 A) teaches an in-situ polymerized solid-state battery (Paragraphs 9, 16). Xiang teaches the polymerization of the electrode layer so that the solid electrolyte has a close-contact electrode-solid electrolyte interface (Paragraph 9). In the method of preparing the solid electrolyte, Xiang teaches a prepolymer precursor liquid including a polymer monomer (Paragraph 12). Xiang teaches a pretreatment solution comprising an initiator, wherein the electrode sheets are pretreated with the pretreatment solution (Paragraphs 13-14) in order to uniformly disperse the initiator on the surface of the electrodes. A porous support material is provided between the pretreated electrode sheets (Paragraph 16), and the prepolymer precursor solution is injected into the battery, infiltrating the supporting porous support material (Paragraph 36). Xiang teaches the prepolymer precursor solution starts to polymerize and grow from the electrode surface, with solidification extending into the support material (Paragraph 36).
Kim (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007087267 A1) discloses an electrode slurry including monomers capable of forming a polymer via polymerization, the electrode slurry applied to a current collector prior to polymerization to form a binder polymer of the electrode (Abstract).
Chen (Chinese Patent Publication No. 111916835 A) discloses the preparation of a polymer lithium ion battery including (1) preparing a positive electrode slurry and making the positive electrode slurry into a positive pole piece; (2) preparing a negative electrode slurry and making the negative electrode slurry Negative pole piece; (3) The positive pole piece, the separator and the negative pole piece are formed into a battery core and placed in the battery case; (4) An electrolyte is prepared and the electrolyte is injected into the battery case (5) After the sealed battery case is allowed to stand, perform in-situ polymerization treatment to obtain the polymer lithium ion battery (Paragraph 9).
He (Chinese Patent Publication No. 113299982 A) discloses an in-situ polymerized electrolyte used in all-solid-state batteries (Paragraph 1) prepared by liquid injection where a positive and negative electrode are stacked and assembled into battery followed by in-situ polymerization electrolyte injection (Paragraph 36).
Ji (Chinese Patent Publication No. 113471526 A) discloses a multilayer composite electrolyte and a solid-state lithium battery comprising the electrolyte (Paragraph 6), wherein the electrolyte comprises a negative electrode facing layer formed by in-situ polymerization on one side of the solid electrolyte base layer by using a second polymerized monomer (Paragraph 11) and a positive electrode facing layer formed by in-situ polymerization on the other side of the solid electrolyte base layer (Paragraph 35).
Response to Arguments
In the remarks submitted March 27th, 2026, applicant argues that the Examiner’s definition of monomer is narrow, and according to its definition in Britannica, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that an ether-containing oligomer is a monomer within the scope of the claims.
The arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents the Oxford English Dictionary definition of oligomer, “a polymer whose molecules consist of relatively few repeating units.” As the OED definition of oligomer defines it as a polymer, it remains unclear to the examiner how an ether-containing oligomer can be listed as a suitable monomer in the claimed invention, given that oligomers are known in the art as polymers, not monomers. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 7-9 is maintained for the aforementioned reasons.
In the remarks submitted March 27th, 2026, applicant argues that the claimed invention is not anticipated by Duan because the claimed in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayer electrolyte is structurally distinct from that of Duan. Applicant argues that the manner of forming the materials disclosed in Duan are different from that required in the present claims, which makes it difficult to mass produce, which is the problem solved by the presently claimed invention. Applicant argues that the in-situ photopolymerization is only mentioned by Duan on the negative electrode side, which occurs before the battery is assembled, making it significantly different from the in-situ polymerization as recited in the process steps of the instant claim.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments with respect to the arguments directed toward the different methods of forming the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayer electrolyte disclosed by Duan and the instant application, the Examiner presents that for claims directed toward a product, the determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. The methods of producing the product are not required to be the same between the instant disclosure and the prior art, only that the structural features of the product resulting from the instant method are shared by the product disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2113.
Furthermore, with respect to applicant’s arguments that the method of producing the product disclosed by Duan is inferior to that disclosed by the present invention, the Examiner presents that the claims of the instant application are directed toward a product, and therefore the method of producing the product is not required to be the same between the instant disclosure and the prior art. The prior art anticipates the claims because Duan teaches the structural features of the product resulting from the instant method. As such, the arguments directed toward the advantages of the instant method that make it superior to the method of Duan are not given patentable weight in determining the patentability of the product.
Finally, with respect to applicant’s arguments directed toward in-situ photopolymerization on the negative electrode side as disclosed by Duan, the Examiner presents that the structure resulting from the method steps of the instant claim 1, as discussed above, are:
an in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayered electrolyte, wherein the multilayer electrolyte comprises an oxidation-resistant polymer layer formed on the positive electrode and a reduction-resistant polymer layer formed on a negative electrode
wherein the oxidation-resistant polymer layer formed on the positive electrode comprises an oxidation-resistant polymer
wherein the reduction-resistant polymer layer formed on the negative electrode comprises a reduction-resistant polymer
As the multilayered electrolyte of Duan comprises the above structural features, and further Duan teaches in-situ polymerization occurring at at least one of the electrodes, the solid-state battery of Duan is considered an in-situ polymerized solid-state battery further meeting the instant claimed limitation. As currently written, the instant claim does not preclude this interpretation.
In the remarks submitted March 27th, 2026, applicant argues that the independent claim 1 is defined by the production process, where the specific structure of the claimed invention is shown in Figure 2 of the Remarks. Applicant generally argues that the structure resulting from the process of the disclosure is the oxidation-resistant polymer with a decreasing concentration from the positive electrode surface to the inside of the separator (gradient) and the reduction-resistant polymer with a decreasing concentration from the negative electrode surface to the inside of the separator (gradient). Applicant argues that as the electrolyte permeates, the small molecules before polymerization penetrate deeply into the pores of the positive electrode and the structure of the separator; the polymer formed after the polymerization forms a natural transition from the positive electrode to the negative electrode without creating a distinct interface layer, thus eliminating the interface problem between the electrode and the electrolyte. Applicant argues the structure disclosed by Duan has distinct layers and interfaces which are not structurally present in the battery of the structure resulting from the instant recited method.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See MPEP 716.01(c)(II). There is no evidence in the disclosure as filed that the structure described by applicant in the remarks and illustrated in Figure 2 of the remarks in the structure resulting from the disclosed method, nor that the gradient is the only possible structure resulting from the disclosed instant method of forming the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayer electrolyte.
Without this evidence, the Examiner cannot reasonably conclude that the product’s structure resulting from the process as claimed -– the oxidation-resistant polymer with a decreasing concentration from the positive electrode surface to the inside of the separator (gradient) and that the reduction-resistant polymer with a decreasing concentration from the negative electrode surface to the inside of the separator (gradient) – is the only possible structure. The disclosure further does not provide a distinction in the steps of the which result in a gradient as described by application, and therefore the Examiner maintains that a possible structure resulting from the process as claimed is a multi-layered electrolyte with distinct layers, such as the one described by Duan that reads on the instant claimed limitations.
In the remarks submitted March 27th, 2026, applicant argues that the technical solution disclosed in Duan is similar to that of Comparative Example 6 of the present specification, with the only difference being the specific material used. Applicant goes on to compare the capacity performance and cycling stability of Comparative Example 6 with that of Example 1, then draws the conclusion that the capacity and cycling stability of the battery in Duan would be significantly inferior to that of the presently claimed invention.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that as described by applicant, there is a different in the materials used in the disclosure of Duan and the Comparative Example 6 of the instant disclosure. As such, the Examiner submits that if there is a difference in the materials being used between Duan and Comparative Example 6, then there is no basis to equate the capacity and cycling stability of the battery of Comparative Example 6 with the battery disclosed by Duan. Further, there is further no basis to draw the conclusion that the battery of Example 1 of the present disclosure would have superior capacity and cycling stability over the battery of Duan, as the instant disclosure’s battery of Comparative Example 6 and the battery of Duan are comprised of differing materials that may affect performance.
In the remarks submitted March 27th, 2026, applicant argues applicant argues that the claimed invention is not anticipated by Li because the claimed in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayer electrolyte is structurally distinct from that of Li. Applicant argues that the present independent claim differs from the structure disclosed by Li in that in the present invention the position of the polymer layer is formed in situ on the positive and negative electrode sides while in Li and polymer layer is formed on both sides of the separator.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that the structure resulting from the method steps of the instant claim 1, as discussed above, are:
an in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayered electrolyte, wherein the multilayer electrolyte comprises an oxidation-resistant polymer layer formed on the positive electrode and a reduction-resistant polymer layer formed on a negative electrode
wherein the oxidation-resistant polymer layer formed on the positive electrode comprises an oxidation-resistant polymer
wherein the reduction-resistant polymer layer formed on the negative electrode comprises a reduction-resistant polymer
Thus, the Examiner submits that as described by applicant and illustrated in Figure 4 of the remarks submitted by applicant, the oxidation-resistant polymer layer is in contact with the positive electrode in the assembled battery and therefore considered to be a layer formed on the positive electrode. Similarly, the reduction-resistant polymer layer is in contact with the negative electrode and therefore considered to be a layer formed on a negative electrode, meeting the limitations pertaining to the product of the claimed method.
In the remarks submitted March 27th, 2026, applicant argues that the independent claim 1 is defined by the production process, where the specific structure of the claimed invention is shown in Figure 2 of the Remarks. Applicant generally argues that the structure of Li is different from that resulting from the process of the disclosure in that the structure disclosed by Li has distinct boundaries and interfaces which are not structurally present in the battery of the structure resulting from the instant recited method, including notably a gradient distribution of polymer concentration. Applicant further argues that the obvious interfaces of Li between the electrolyte layer and the electrodes results in large impedance.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See MPEP 716.01(c)(II). Applicant has not provided the evidence that the interfaces of the product of Li would result in large impedance, and therefore this conclusion is treated as purely speculative.
Further, the Examiner presents that there is no evidence in the disclosure as filed that the structure described by applicant in the remarks and illustrated in Figure 2 of the remarks in the structure resulting from the disclosed method, nor that the gradient is the only possible structure resulting from the disclosed instant method of forming the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayer electrolyte.
Without this evidence, the Examiner cannot reasonably conclude that the product’s structure resulting from the process as claimed -– the oxidation-resistant polymer with a decreasing concentration from the positive electrode surface to the inside of the separator (gradient) and that the reduction-resistant polymer with a decreasing concentration from the negative electrode surface to the inside of the separator (gradient) – is the only possible structure. The disclosure further does not provide a distinction in the steps of the which result in a gradient as described by application, and therefore the Examiner maintains that a possible structure resulting from the process as claimed is a multi-layered electrolyte with distinct layers, such as the one described by Li that reads on the instant claimed limitations.
In the remarks submitted March 27th, 2026, applicant argues that the manner of forming the materials disclosed in Li are different from that required in the present claims.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments directed toward the different methods of forming the in-situ polymerized solid-state battery with a multilayer electrolyte disclosed by Li and the instant application, the Examiner presents that for claims directed toward a product, the determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. The methods of producing the product are not required to be the same between the instant disclosure and the prior art, only that the structural features of the product resulting from the instant method are shared by the product disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2113.
In the remarks submitted March 27th, 2026, applicant argues that the claimed invention exhibits superior results over Li and offers a more significant advantage in terms of production costs compared to Li.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that the claims of the instant application are directed toward a product, and therefore the method of producing the product is not required to be the same between the instant disclosure and the prior art. The prior art anticipates the claims because Li teaches the structural features of the product resulting from the instant method. As such, the arguments directed toward the advantages of the instant method that make it superior to the method of Li with respect to the production costs are not given patentable weight in determining the patentability of the product.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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.
/O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights