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 with traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 01/02/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Office has failed to provide any evidence to support the assertion that the claimed product can be made as stated in the Restriction/Election Requirement dated 11/06/2025. The traversal is also on the grounds that a search of all the claims would not impose a serious burden on the office. This is not found persuasive because the product as claimed can be made by a materially different process than that proposed by claim 15. As stated in the restriction/election requirement the product of claim 1 does not require at least partially polymerizing the polymerizable composition prior to application on at least one portion of a surface of an anode and/or to at least one portion of a surface of a cathode before completely polymerizing the partially polymerized polymerizable composition in at least the capacity that the polymerizable composition does not need to be applied to an anode or cathode at all. The claim limitations of independent claim 1 do not include the anode and cathode. Further, the preamble stating that the polymerizable composition is for a solid polymer electrolyte holds no patentable weight. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “a polymerizable composition for a solid polymer electrolyte” in line 1 is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
As such, the product of the polymerizable composition of claim 1 does not require a process of making that includes battery components such as an anode and cathode.
In regards to the traversal that there would be no search burden, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Search burden exists for one or more of the following reasons: the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification, the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter, and/or the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/02/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3-4 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. Claim 3 includes the limitation “a salt of an alkaline metal and/or a salt of an alkaline-earth metal” in line 2. It is unclear whether this salt is the same salt introduced in independent claim 1, lines 6-7 of “the third moiety comprising a salt of an alkaline metal or of an alkaline-earth metal”, or if the salt of claim 3 is a separate salt than that of claim 1. For the sake of examination, either interpretation can be used. Claim 4 is rejected based on its dependency on claim 3.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda et al. (JP-2000222939-A), hereinafter Noda, as cited in the IDS, in view of Vallee et al. (US-20180261883-A1), hereinafter Vallee.
Regarding claim 1, Noda teaches a polymerizable composition for a solid polymer electrolyte comprising: a first polymer ([0074] methoxypolyethylene glycol monomethacrylate) comprising a first moiety and a second moiety, the first moiety being capable of coordinating cations of an alkaline metal and/or of an alkaline-earth metal ([0074] methoxypolyethylene glycol), the second moiety being photo-activable and/or heat-activable ([0074 monomethacrylate); an oligomer having at least two photo-activable and/or heat-activable groups ([0074] polyethylene glycol dimethacrylate); a solvent ([0074] acetonitrile solvent); and a polymerization initiator ([0076] 2,2-dimethoxy-2,2'-phenylacetophenone); wherein the polymerisation initiator allows initiating polymerisation between the second moiety of the first polymer and the photo-activable and/or heat-activable groups of the oligomer by the action of a temperature comprised between 20°C and 150°C or of a radiation ([0076] irradiated with ultraviolet light at 25°C).
Noda fails to teach a second polymer comprising a third moiety, the third moiety comprising a salt of an alkaline metal or of an alkaline-earth metal.
Vallee is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of polymers for electrolytes ([0001]). Vallee teaches a second polymer comprising a third moiety, the third moiety comprising a salt of an alkaline metal or of an alkaline-earth metal ([0008] BAB type polymer wherein block B is an anionic polymer to which is grafted an anion of lithium salt; [0062] advantageously mixed with cross-linkable polyoxyethylene glycol dimethacrylate).
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 modified Noda and added the second polymer of Vallee. Doing so improves the electrochemical performance by increasing the Li ions transport number and enables the production of stronger and thinner electrolyte films (Vallee [0008]-[0010]) and provides access to the grafted anions of lithium salt (Vallee [0062]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Noda teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Noda also teaches comprising between 10% and 50% by weight of the first polymer ([0074]-[0076] 2 parts by weight based on a total of 15.05 parts by weight in [0076] is about 13.3% by weight), between 1% and 20% by weight of the oligomer [0074]-[0076] 2 parts by weight based on a total of 15.05 parts by weight yielding about 13.3 wt%), between 20% and 60% by weight of the solvent ([0074]-[0076] of the 15.05 parts by weight in [0076], 5.05 parts by weight are the other components excluding the (Li(CF3SO2)2N), meaning the remainder 10 parts is the solvent and (Li(CF3SO2)2N), yielding around 66%). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Noda also teaches between 0.01% and 2% by weight of the polymerisation initiator ([0076] 0.05 parts by weight based on 15.05 parts by weight, yielding 0.33 wt%; alternatively [0054] 0.1 to 1.0 parts by weight of the crosslinkable compound having an ether bond and a crosslinkable functional group), based on the total weight of the polymerisable composition.
Modified Noda fails to teach between 1% and 20% by weight of the second polymer. However, this value is optimizable. Vallee teaches that the relative proportions of the polymers of block A and B can be adjusted to give the desired properties of mechanical hardness and adhesion for the electrolyte (Vallee [0028]), and that the polymer must be added in addition to a lithium salt to provide adequate ionic conductivity to the final electrolyte (Vallee [0065]). Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the weight percentage of the second polymer such as to give the desired properties of mechanical hardness and adhesion and to provide sufficient ionic conductivity in conjunction with a separate lithium salt (Vallee [0028];[0065]). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, modified Noda teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Noda also teaches further comprising a salt of an alkaline metal and/or a salt of an alkaline-earth metal ([0074] lithium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide).
Regarding claim 4, modified Noda teaches all of the limitations of claim 3. Noda fails to explicitly teach comprising between 0.5% and 5% by weight of salt, based on the total weight of the polymerisable composition. Noda does teach that the ratio of the salt to the crosslinked compound is preferably in the range of 0.0001 to 5 based on the ratio of the number of moles of the electrolyte salt to the number of moles of the ether bond units in the crosslinked compound and 0.0001 to 5 based on the ratio of the number of moles of the electrolyte salt to the number of moles of ether bond units in the siloxane derivative ([0043]). Noda also teaches in example 1 the salt is added in 1.0 mol/kg relative to the siloxane derivative ([0074]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Noda teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Noda also teaches wherein the first moiety contains a polyethylene oxide moiety ([0074] methoxypolyethylene glycol).
Regarding claim 6, modified Noda teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Noda also teaches wherein at least one of the photo-activable and/or heat-activable groups is an end group (see polyethylene glycol dimethacrylate and methoxypolyethylene glycol monomethacrylate in chemical formulas 28 and 29 above [0076] in the Japanese language version of Noda provided in the IDS; the Espacenet translation does not include the formulas).
Regarding claim 7, modified Noda teaches all of the limitations of claim 6. Noda also teaches wherein all of the photo-activable and/or heat-activable groups of the oligomer are end groups, and the oligomer is a telechelic oligomer (see chemical formula 28 polyethylene glycol dimethacrylate).
Regarding claim 9, modified Noda teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Noda also teaches wherein the oligomer has a molar mass comprised between 500 g/mol and 5,000 g/mol (see chemical formula 28 polyethylene glycol dimethacrylate; each methacrylate group includes C4H5O2.and each polyethylene glycol includes C2H4O; it is known in the art that the atomic/molar mass of C is around 12, the atomic/molar mass of H is around 1, and the atomic/molar mass of O is around 16; for both methacrylate groups: 2*((4*12)+(5*1)+(2*16)) = 170 g/mol; chemical formula 28 appears to have 9 polyethylene glycol groups giving: 9*((2*12)+(4*1)+(1*16)) = 396 g/mol; the total molar mass of the oligomer of chemical formula 28 given an integer of 9 for the polyethylene glycol is 170+396 = 566 g/mol).
Regarding claim 10, modified Noda teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Noda also teaches wherein the polymerisation is a polymerisation between the second moiety of the first polymer, the photo- activable and/or heat-activable groups of the oligomer and advantageously the second polymer by the action of a temperature comprised between 20°C and 150°C or of a radiation ([0074]-[0076] irradiated with UV light in air at 25 °C to cause polymerization reaction).
Regarding claim 11, modified Noda teaches all of the limitations of claim 9. Noda also teaches wherein the polymerisation is carried out by action of a UV radiation ([0074]-[0076] irradiated with UV light in air at 25 °C to cause polymerization reaction).
Regarding claim 12, modified Noda teaches all of the limitations of claim 10. Noda also teaches a battery element, comprising the solid polymer electrolyte according to claim 10 ([0077]; [0060]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Noda teaches all of the limitations of claim 12. Noda also teaches further comprising an anode comprising an alkaline metal or an alkaline-earth metal ([0062] lithium metal or a metal capable of absorbing and desorbing lithium ions).
Regarding claim 14, modified Noda teaches all of the limitations of claim 13. Noda also teaches wherein the alkaline metal is lithium or the alkaline-earth metal is magnesium ([0062] lithium metal).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda in view of Vallee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Michot et al. (US-20020128364-A1), hereinafter Michot.
Regarding claim 8, modified Noda teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Noda fails to teaches wherein one or more of the second moiety and of the photo-activable and/or heat-activable groups is a maleimide.
Michot is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of polymers for electrolytes ([0021]). Michot teaches wherein one or more of the second moiety and of the photo-activable and/or heat-activable groups is a maleimide ([0058] maleimides, acrylates, and methacrylates are known as activated by heat or free radical sources).
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 replaced the methacrylate in the second moiety or the photoactivable and/or heat-activable groups with a maleimide as they are art recognized equivalents both known for use as a group activable by heat or free radical sources (Michot [0058]). In addition, the maleimide shows advantage over the methacrylate for this use as it also is barely sensitive to oxygen (Michot [0058]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722