DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 6, 7 and 11-16 are pending as amended on 2 July 2026, claims 8-10 are withdrawn from consideration.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and the remarks/arguments have been entered and fully considered.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the objection to claim 7, The objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment cancelling claims 3 and 5 renders the rejection of claim 3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph moot.
Applicant’s amendment removing the elected species of polyethylene glycol allyl ether overcomes the rejection of claims 1, 6 and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) over US2014/0093767A1 (Sakitani). The rejection has been withdrawn. The search has been extended to additional species.
Applicant’s amendment does not distinguish from US Patent 6162563 (Miura).
Applicant’s arguments in light of the amendment have been fully considered.
With respect to Miura, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues Miura fails to disclose the specific compounds as amended. The examiner disagrees. Miura discloses that a polymer solid electrolyte comprising a polyalkylene glycol derivative (col. 1, line 48 to col. 2, line 20), wherein the polyalkylene derivative includes diester of polyalkylene glycols such as polyethylene glycol dimetharcylate or polyethylene glycol diacrylate (col. 12, line 59-68 and claim 27), which meets the claimed compound as amended.
With respect to Sakitani, in response to applicant's argument that Sakitani’s compound has a different technical effect, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant’s other arguments are moot as they do not apply to the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 6, 11, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Miura.
Regarding claim 1, Miura teaches a secondary battery comprises a polymer solid electrolyte comprising a polyalkylene glycol derivative (col. 1, line 48 to col. 2, line 20), wherein the polyalkylene derivative includes diester of polyalkylene glycols such as polyethylene glycol dimetharcylate or polyethylene glycol diacrylate (col. 12, line 59-68 and claim 27), which meets the claimed
additive compound.
Regarding claim 6, Miura teaches the secondary battery comprises a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode, and a gel-like film comprising the polymer solid electrolyte sandwiched in between (col.18, line 1-23, Examples 3 and 11), which meets the claimed electrodes, separator and electrolyte, respectively.
Regarding claims 11, 12 and 14, Miura teaches the battery can be used in electronic apparatus, devices and capacitor (col.14, line 28-35 and col. 27, line ).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 6, 7 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakitani.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Sakitani teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprises a positive electrode including a positive electrode active material, a negative electrode including a negative electrode active material, a nonaqueous electrolyte, and a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, and an inorganic particle layer is disposed on the surface of the positive electrode, the inorganic particle layer contains a polymer with a polyethylene glycol group ([0008] and [0013]), wherein the polymer includes polyethylene glycol monoallyl ethers ([0018]).
Sakitani does not teaches the instantly claimed polypropylene glycol mono allyl ether. However, Given the close structural similarity between polyethylene glycol monoallyl ether of Sakitani and polypropylene glycol mono allyl ether, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable basis to expect that polypropylene glycol mono allyl ether would function in similar manner to polyethylene glycol monoallyl ether since it has been held that "Structural relationships may provide the requisite motivation or suggestion to modify known compounds to obtain new compounds. For example, a prior art compound may suggest its homologs because homologs often have similar properties and therefore chemists of ordinary skill would ordinarily contemplate making them to try to obtain compounds with improved properties." See, e.g., Dillon, 919 F.2d at 693, 696, 16 USPQ2d at 1901,1904. See also Devel, 51 F.3d at 1558, 34 USPQ2d at 1214. MPEP 2144.08[R-6] A.
Regarding claim 7, Sakitani exemplifies a positive electrode comprising an aluminum foil current collector, both sides of which are coated with a slurry of a positive electrode active material, a conductive agent and a PVDF binder ([0031] and [0032]), and further coated with an inorganic particle slurry comprising the polyethylene glycol based polymer ([0031]-[0033]), wherein the positive electrode active material, the conductive agent, and PVDF are mixed in 95:2.5:2.5 by mass, the polyethylene glycol based polymer is mixed with the inorganic particle in an amount of 1% ([0033]), thus the amount of positive active material is less than about 95 wt.%, the conductive agent is less than about 2.5 wt.%, the binder is less than about 2.5 wt.%, and the polymer is less than about 1 wt.% based on the combined coating layers, which overlaps with the claimed concentration of positive active substance, conductive agent, binder and polymer additive, respectively.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found it obvious to include the positive active substance, conductive agent, binder and polymer additive, respectively, at the instantly claimed range since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside range disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 f. 2d 257,191 USPQ 90(CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. See MPEP 2144.05, In re Boesch, 617 F2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Hoeschele, 406 F2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Regarding claims 11- 14, Sakitani teaches that the battery can be applied as power supplies for mobile phones, notebook computers and PDAs, power supplies for HEVs and electric tools, as well as capacitors ([0060]).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakitani as applied to claims 1, 6, 7 and 11-14 above, and further in view of US2016/0181655A1 (Yanagita).
The teachings of Sakitani are set forth above.
Regarding claim 15, Sakitan does not discloses the thickness of the positive electrode active substance layer.
Yanagita teaches that the average thickness of a positive electrode material layer is more preferably 40 μm to 150 μm to provide both good energy density and load performance ([0053]).
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to adopt the thickness of the positive electrode active material layer of Yanagita in the battery of Sakitani. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teachings of Yanagita that to do so would predictably provide both good energy density and load performance ([0053]).
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings of Sakitani and Yanagita are set forth above. Sakitani further teaches that the bulk density of the positive electrode is 3.6 g/cm3 ([0032]), thus an areal density of about 14.4 mg/cm2 to about 54 mg/cm2 (i.e., (3.6X1000X 40/10000) to 3.6X1000X150 /10000) estimated by the examiner based on a thickness range of 40 -150 μm as taught by Yanagita ([0043]), which overlaps with the claimed range and a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 f. 2d 257,191 USPQ 90(CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. See MPEP 2144.05, In re Boesch, 617 F2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Hoeschele, 406 F2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 AIQUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-7736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am -4:00 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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-2721302. 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.
/AIQUN LI/Ph.D., Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights