DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is responsive to national-stage application filed 07/10/2023. Following entry of the concurrently filed preliminary amendment, claims 1-2 and 4-20 are currently pending and under examination herein.
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 . However, 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 a 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.
Information Disclosure Statement(s)
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) accompanying the application papers is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609, and therefore the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits. Initialed copies of the IDS are included with the mailing/transmittal of this Office action.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is 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 12, the term “obtainable” creates an indefiniteness issue, as it is unclear whether the claim should be narrowly construed to polymer film made by curing a composition according to parent claim 11, or broadly read as merely indicating the potential of making the claimed film by curing said composition, but also reading on polymer film made from a different composition. For purposes of substantive examination, the Office is adopting the former claim construction, but advises that this ground of rejection may be obviated by amending claim 12 to recited –obtained-- in lieu of “obtainable”.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 11/12 are of improper dependent form in that each fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which they depend; in particular, the limitation of parent claim 1 stipulating “0.008 to 25 mg/g of each of components (a) and (b)” is not included in the subject matters of the respective claims. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by either of Bodesheim et al (US 3755263) and Elfert et al (US 4269967).
Regarding Claim 11, Bodesheim et al disclose (see Examples 1-3) a composition comprising various alkali metal salts of 3,5-dicarbomethoxy diphenyl disulphimide, hexamethylene diamine, caprolactam and ɛ-aminocaproic acid. Separately, Elfert et al disclose (see Examples 1-3) a composition comprising a solution of 3-(p-aminophenyl)-7-amino-2,4-(1H, 3H) quinazoline dione (I) and sodium 3,3’-diaminodiphenyldisulphimide (II) in dimethyl acetamide. In both references, the described compositions are subjected to polycondensation reactions to prepare polyamides. The disclosed alkali metal salts of 3,5-dicarbomethoxy diphenyl disulphimide and the Na salt of 3,3’-diaminodiphenyldisulphimide (II) each qualifies as component (a) as defined in present claim 1, in that each is free from fluoro groups and comprises a group corresponding claimed formula (I) where M+ is a Li, Na, or K cation. In addition, the hexamethylene diamine of Bodesheim et al and the 3-(p-aminophenyl)-7-amino-2,4-(1H, 3H) quinazoline dione (I) of Elfert et al respectively qualify as component (b) as defined in present claim 1, in that both are free of ionic groups and correspond to claimed formula (III) where n is 2, linking group A is –(CH2)6- or
PNG
media_image1.png
98
190
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, and the two -NH2 groups are considered species of “R’ … polymerisable group” attached to said linking group, since each participates in a polycondensation polymerization reaction as noted above. As such, Bodesheim et al and Elfert et al are each considered to fully disclose an embodiment of the composition according to present claim 11.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 111748095A (‘CN ‘095’; citing infra to corresponding machine-generated translation, furnished herewith).
Regarding Claims 11-12, CN ‘095 discloses (see [0034]-[0036], [0064]) a composition (gel polymer electrolyte) comprising lithium p-styrene sulfonimide, tetra(pentaerythritol 3-mercaptopropionate) (PETMP), 2,2-bis(hydroxymethyl)propionic acid (DMPA), and N,N-dimethylpyrrolidone (as solvent), and a film “obtainable” by curing the composition. Lithium p-styrene sulfonimide is a species of component (a) as defined in present claim 1, in that it is free from fluoro groups and comprises a group corresponding claimed formula (I) where M+ is a Li cation. Additionally, PETMP qualifies as component (b) as defined in present claim 1, in that it is free of ionic groups and corresponds to claimed formula (III) where n is 4 and A is a C linking group; further, as each of the four
PNG
media_image2.png
33
51
media_image2.png
Greyscale
groups of PETMP reacts with enol groups pendant from plural polyimide chains containing double bonds to form a single-ion gel polymer electrolyte having a crosslinked network as shown in paragraph [0017] (of original document), these groups are considered species of “R’ … polymerisable group” attached to said linking group. As such, CN ‘095 is considered to fully disclose an embodiment of the composition and polymer film according to present claims 11 and 12, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-10, and 17-20 are allowed.
Claims 13-16 are objected to as being dependent on a rejected parent claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the parent claim and any intervening claim.
The closest prior art to Bodesheim et al, Elfert et al, and CN ‘095, discussed above, does not describe the inventions of claims 1-2, 4-10, and 13-20, especially the limitation that the polymer film (or composition) comprises 0.008 to 25 mg/g of each of a crosslinking agent which is free from fluoro groups and comprises a group of claimed Formula (I) and of a non-ionic crosslinking agent of claimed Formula (III). Furthermore, the closest prior art fails to provide proper rationale to modify any of their respective inventions into the invention(s) of any of instant claims 1-2, 4-10, and 13-20.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Examiner F. M. Teskin whose telephone number is (571) 272-1116. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 5:30 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, Robert Jones, can be reached at (571) 270-7733. The appropriate fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/FRED M TESKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/FMTeskin/03-17-26
Prosecution Insights