DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species B in the reply filed on 06/09/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gavelin (US20020028387A1) in view of McLellan t. al. (US20110229750A1).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 5, Gavelin discloses an energy storage device, comprising: an anode; a cathode and an electrolyte, which is disposed between the anode and the cathode(¶[0063]), and the gel electrolyte may be cladded on a separator which may be a non-woven polymer(¶[0057]), but does not disclose wherein, the separator is a fibrous membrane composed of polyacrylonitrile, and a surface of the fibrous membrane is modified by an acidic functional group or a salt thereof.
McLellan, related to batteries, teaches a fibrous membrane separator composed of polyacrylonitrile modified by a carboxylic acid (i.e. polyacrylic acid, ¶[0071]) as described by the instant specification Fig. 1.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the non-woven separator of McLellan as a known equivalent to the non-woven separator as taught by Gavelin.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the separator of Gavelin to use in the battery of Gavelin because they are known equivalents.
The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 3, Gavelin discloses an energy storage device of claim 1, and does not exclude the selection of an acidic functional group therefore claim 3 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Gavelin discloses an energy storage device of claim 1, and Mclellan further teaches wherein the fibrous membrane is obtained by a meltblown process(¶[0064]).
Claim 4 is considered product-by-process claim including the fibrous membrane is obtained by an electrospinning or meltblown process. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in 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 product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Gavelin discloses an energy storage device of claim 1, and Gavelin further discloses wherein the electrolyte is a gel substance that can conduct lithium ions, and the gel substance is derived from a gel polymer electrolyte precursor solution, the gel polymer electrolyte precursor solution comprises: a multi-functional methacrylate crosslinker(allyl methacrylate), a poly (ethylene glycol)-based methacrylate (the polymer contains poly(ethylene glycol and monomethyl ether methacrylate), and an azo-type initiator or a peroxide-type initiator(AIBN)(see example 1, ¶[0066]).
Furthermore the claim recites intended use limitations including the ability to conduct lithium ions. Intended use limitations are given weight to the extent that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP § 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. These limitations will be treated alongside structural limitations for compact prosecution. In this case the battery is a lithium ion battery and the associated electrolyte is capable of conducting lithium ions(¶[0061])
Claim 6 is considered product-by-process claim including the gel polymer is derived from a precursor solution. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in 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 product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 pm EST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/K.J.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1726 /RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights