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 Group I, claims 1-8 and 13-15 in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/29/2026.
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 1-8 and 13-15 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 1 and subsequent claims refer to oligomer, however the scope of this term is unclear. Generally, an oligomer is understood to be a polymer molecule consisting of a small number of monomers (dictionary.com) or a polymer or polymer intermediate containing relatively few structural units (merriam-webster.com). Applicant has not provided a definition that would counter this generally understood definition. The instant specification and claims 7 and 8 recite compounds that are not generally understood to be within the scope of the term “oligomer”. For instance, the instant specification and instant claim 7 recite “polyester sulfide”, “polyvinyl alcohol”, and “polyvinylidene fluoride” which are not considered to fall within the scope of the generally accepted definition of “oligomer” as described above. Claim 8 and the instant specification recite tetrafluoroethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, an (allyl 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl ether)-(2,2,2-trifluoro ethyl acrylate) copolymer, a tetrafluoroethylene-(2-vinyl-1,3-dioxolane) copolymer, and a tetrafluoroethylene-vinyl methacrylate copolymer. Copolymers such as these also do not fall within the scope of the generally accepted definition of oligomer. Thus, the scope of the term “oligomer” is not clear in the record since compounds beyond the general understanding of the term are referenced in the specification and claims. For the purpose of examination, any of the materials recited in claims 7 and 8 (which are also recited in the instant specification) are considered to fall within the scope of the claims as well as any generally understood compound that falls within the generally understood definition of “oligomer”.
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 2 is 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. Claim 2 requires curing the first gel polymer electrolyte composition is performed after step (S2). Claim 2 depends from claim 1 which states that S2 is the step of injecting the first gel polymer electrolyte composition into a battery case and S4 is curing the first gel polymer electrolyte composition and second gel polymer electrolyte composition “which have been injected into the battery case”. Based upon the plain wording of claim 1, curing the first gel polymer electrolyte must be performed after step (S2). Thus, claim 2 fails to further limit claim 1. 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2019/0064180 (Jung) (cited on IDS filed 04/17/2025) alone, or further in view of US 2020/0365933 (Shin).
Jung discloses an electrochemical device that may be a secondary battery which may be prepared by a method including the steps of preparing two electrodes and a separator and assembling them into a pouch cell as described in Experimental Example 3. Experimental Example 3 includes the steps of preparing a first composition by adding 3% by weight of 2-isocyanatoethyl methacrylate to the base composition of Production Example 1. As the initiator, benzoyl peroxide was used in an amount of 2% by weight of the monomer. A second composition was prepared by adding polyethylene glycol methyl ether methacrylate of 15wt% to the base composition of Preparation Example 1. As the initiator, benzoyl peroxide was used in an amount of 2% by weight of the monomer. As explained in Experimental Example 1, in Examples 2-5, benzoyl peroxide was uses as the initiator and cells were injected with the compositions, and heated to form a gel (cured). Jung discloses that the assembly may be manufactured prior to forming the electrolyte layers (claim 11). As shown in Figure 1, injection of the first composition forms an impregnated layer and injection of the second composition forms a bulk electrolyte layer.
The bulk electrolyte layer 20 may comprise a gel electrolyte comprising a polymer or copolymer of an acrylate or methacrylate containing an alkoxy group and an electrolytic solvent. The polymer or copolymer is considered an oligomer (see discussion of the scope of “oligomer” in the 112(b) rejection above). Specifically, the bulk electrolyte layer 20 may comprise a gel electrolyte comprising 3 to 50% by weight of a polymer or copolymer of acrylate or methacrylate containing an alkoxy group and a remainder electrolytic solvent. The first composition of the first composition may comprise an acrylate or methacrylate comprising an isocyanate group and an electrolytic solvent (considered an oligomer). Specifically, the first composition may comprise from 1 to 15% by weight of an acrylate or methacrylate containing an isocyanate group and a remainder electrolytic solvent. Both compositions form gels. Experimental Example 3 demonstrates an embodiment where the first gel composition has an oligomer content that is less than the content of oligomer in the second gel composition.
Jung expressly discloses formation of gel polymers by heating and also includes polymerization initiators, such as benzoyl peroxide, in both compositions. Jung expressly discloses curing the first composition and generally discloses curing but does not specifically disclose curing the second composition. As Jung demonstrates that it is known to inject gel electrolyte compositions followed by curing, and discloses a first gel formed in this manner, it would have been obvious to form the second gel in a similar manner by injection followed by curing to form the gel using a known technique for forming the material. Alternatively, Shin discloses that it is known to form a gel polymer electrolyte in a secondary battery after injecting the gel polymer electrolyte composition into the secondary battery, where the gel polymer electrolyte may be prepared by curing after said injection (abstract). Thus, the formation of a gel in-situ is disclosed by both Jung and Shin and both references demonstrate in-situ formation of the gel by injection followed by curing. Using a known method of forming the gel would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill for forming both gel electrolytes of Jung.
Regarding claim 2, as noted above, Jung discloses curing the first gel polymer electrolyte composition after injection thereof.
Regarding claim 3, Jung discloses that both the first and second electrolyte compositions may include electrolyte salts and include several lithium salts as selections [0065, 0073].
Regarding claim 4, Jung discloses that the second composition may include an initiator for polymerization or copolymerization [0085].
Regarding claim 6, Jung discloses curing following injection with no intervening steps (Experimental Example 1). It would have been obvious to cure both the first and second gels immediately after injection based upon the express disclosure of curing following injection.
Regarding claim 7, both the first and second gel compositions include polyacrylate based oligomers as noted above.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, experimental example 3 discloses adding 3wt% 2-isocyanatoethyl methacrylate to the base composition to form the first gel composition and adding 15wt% polyethylene glycol methyl ether methacrylate to the base composition to form the second gel composition. These values fall within the claimed ranges.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2019/0064180 (Jung) (cited on IDS filed 04/17/2025) alone, or further in view of US 2020/0365933 (Shin) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR 2019/0019026 (Lee), JP 2010/55950 (Fukuzawa), and JP 2007/207450 (Uchida) (cited on IDS filed 04/17/2025).
Jung discloses two gel electrolytes as discussed above but does not address the viscosities thereof. Shin notes that lower viscosity of the gel composition facilitates impregnation of electrode plates [0130] thus establishing that a lower viscosity is beneficial for impregnation which occurs in Jung. Lee discloses an electrochemical device comprising heterogeneous gel polymer electrolytes (abstract). Lee discloses viscosity for a first gel polymer electrolyte is 5 cps (cP or centipoise) and viscosity for a second gel polymer is 50 cps (Example 1). Thus, establishing that it is known to use two gel polymer electrolyte compositions with viscosities in the ranges claimed. Fukuzawa also discloses using electrolytes that are injected where the first electrolyte has a lower viscosity than the second electrolyte. Finally, Uchida discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte composition present in the inner region of the battery and a gel electrolyte covering the battery element. Uchida further notes that the viscosity of the gel electrolyte is high such that diffusion to the inner side of the battery element can be suppressed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jung such that the viscosity of the first gel polymer electrolyte composition is low as supported by the teachings of Shin and Lee and Fukuzawa to promote impregnation and the viscosity of the second gel polymer electrolyte composition is higher to prevent diffusion to another region as suggested by Uchida. The particular values are seen to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan to determine but Fukuzawa does give an example where the values fall within the ranges claimed thus suggesting such viscosities.
Claim(s) 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2019/0064180 (Jung) (cited on IDS filed 04/17/2025) alone, or further in view of US 2020/0365933 (Shin) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR 2019/0060522 (Jeong) (cited on IDS filed 11/07/2023).
Jung discloses gel electrolyte compositions as discussed above including methacrylate and acrylate polymers or copolymers (abstract). Jung does not disclose a fluorine-based monomer derived unit or the compounds listed in claim 8. Jeong discloses injecting a composition for a gel polymer electrolyte comprising a monomer, oligomer or copolymer into the battery case into which the electrode assembly is inserted and curing (abstract). Jeong further discloses that the polymerizable monomer, oligomer or copolymer as the polymerizable compound is preferably a polymerizable monomer selected from the group consisting of a vinyl group, an epoxy group, an allyl group and a (meth) acrylic group, There is no particular limitation as long as it is a compound which has a functional group and can be changed into a gel state by polymerization or crosslinking and is used as a polymeric monomer, oligomer or copolymer for preparing a conventional gel polymer electrolyte. The copolymers may be exemplified by allyl 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl ether (TFE) - (2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acrylate) copolymer, TFE-vinyl acrylate copolymer, TFE-vinyl acetate (2-vinyl-1,3-dioxolane) copolymer, and TFE-vinyl methacrylate copolymer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a known gel-forming material such as those disclosed by Jeong to form the gel electrolyte compositions of Jung with a reasonable expectation of forming gel electrolytes suitable for use in a battery as demonstrated by Jeong. Regarding claim 8, use of any of these known materials disclosed by Jeong as either the first or second gel electrolyte composition would provide a fluorine bases monomer unit as part of the monomer, oligomer or copolymer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER C MCNEIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 5712723066. 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.
JENNIFER C. MCNEIL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/Jennifer McNeil/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights