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 .
Applicant’s amendments were received on 1/22/26. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 10 and 15 are withdrawn-currently amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/26/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (EP0318161) in view of Bergfelt et al. (ᶓ-Caprolactone-based solid polymer electrolytes for lithium ion batteris:synthesis electrochemical characterization and mechanical stabilization by block copolymerization), on claims 1, 2, 7-9 are withdrawn because the Applicant amended the claims.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerasopoulos et al. (US Publication 2019/0237803) in view of Park et al. (Quasi-Solid-State Electrolyte Synthesized Using a Thiol-ene Click Chemistry for Rechargeable Lithium Metal Batteries with Enhanced Safety), on claims under 1-9 are withdrawn because the Applicant amended the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerasopoulos et al. (US Publication 2019/0237803) in view of Kii (EP 0971431).
Regarding claim 1, the Gerasopoulos et al. reference discloses an electrochemical device, comprising an anode, a cathode, and a cured electrolyte composition disposed between the anode and the cathode. At least a portion of the electrolyte composition interpenetrates at least a portion of both the anode and the cathode; and the cathode and the anode exhibits a stacked geometry (Abstract, P6). The Gerasopoulos reference further discloses the cured electrolyte composition comprises polymeric crosslinking networks including polyethylene glycol, polymethacrylate but is silent in specifying polyethylene imine. However, the Kii et al. reference discloses gel electrolyte composition obtained by crosslinking and curing a polymer comprising copolymers of polyethylene glycol, polymethacrylate, polyethylene imine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate copolymer of polyethylene imine for polyethylene glycol, polymethacrylate for crosslinked and cured polymer disclosed by the Kii et al. reference for the crosslinked and cured polymers comprising polyethylene glycol, polymethacrylate disclosed by the Gerasopoulos reference. The substitution of known equivalent structures involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Fout 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Susi 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). When a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. KSR v. Teleflex
Regarding claim 2, the Gerasopoulos et al. reference discloses the cured electrolyte composition is a single layer without an interface (the interface is not simple planar but the electrolyte penetrates into the electrodes; P66).
Regarding claims 3, the Gerasopoulos et al. reference discloses wherein the cured electrolyte composition comprises a gel polymer electrolyte (P24).
Regarding claims 4, the Gerasopoulos et al. reference discloses the gel polymer electrolyte comprises a hydrogel of a copolymer and a salt dispersed in the hydrogel of a copolymer (P30, P45).
Regarding claim 5, the Gerasopoulos et al. reference discloses wherein the cured electrolyte composition comprises a biodegradable electrolyte composition (water).
Regarding claim 6, the Gerasopoulos et al. reference discloses the cured electrolyte composition comprises an aqueous-based (hydrogel) electrolyte composition.
Regarding claim 7, the Gerasopoulos et al. reference discloses the cured electrolyte composition comprises a non-aqueous electrolyte composition (organic; P44).
Regarding claim 8, the Gerasopoulos et al. reference discloses the cured electrolyte composition comprises an organic electrolyte composition (P44). .
Regarding claim 9, the Gerasopoulos et al. reference discloses the cured electrolyte composition further comprises a lithium salt (P45).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN OI CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5162. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at 5712728760. 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.
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights