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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment submitted 01/23/2024 was received and is being examined on its merits herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted 01/23/2024 and 07/07/2025 were received and have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed 01/23/2024 were received and are approved by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Lithium Ion Secondary Battery Comprising Partition Layer with Matrix Polymer and Ionic Liquid.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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(s) 1-4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirose et al. (U.S. 20120276457, presented in IDS submitted 07/07/2025).
With respect to claim 1, Hirose discloses a lithium ion secondary battery (100 – aqueous electrolyte battery) (Figs. 3) comprising:
a negative electrode (1 – negative electrode active material layer) (Figs. 3); a positive electrode (6 – positive electrode active material layer) (Figs. 3); an aqueous electrolyte (3) containing a lithium salt (Fig. 3; [0100])); and a partition layer (2 – solid electrolyte layer) disposed between the negative electrode (1) and the positive electrode (6) (Fig. 3), wherein
the aqueous electrolyte (3) is in contact with only the positive electrode (6) out of the negative electrode (1) and the positive electrode (6) (Fig. 3), and
the partition layer (2) contains a non-aqueous solid electrolyte A wherein a matrix polymer ([0048]), a lithium salt ([0069]), and a hydrophobic ionic liquid ([0065]) are combined.
With respect to claim 2, Hirose discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte (5) containing a lithium salt ([0064]) is present between the partition layer (2) and the negative electrode (1) (Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 3, Hirose discloses the ionic liquid has anion PF6- ([0068]).
With respect to claim 4, Hirose discloses the ionic liquid has cation tetrabutylammonium
PNG
media_image1.png
235
247
media_image1.png
Greyscale
([0067]), thus satisfying applicant’s Formula (1).
With respect to claim 8, Hirose discloses the negative electrode (1) contains a negative electrode active material, specifically a carbon material ([0043]).
With respect to claim 9, Hirose discloses the positive electrode (6) contains a negative electrode active material, specifically a lithium-containing transition metal oxide containing Co ([0081]).
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.
Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al. as applied to claim 1 above in view of Lee et al. (U.S. 20190237757).
With respect to claim 5, Hirose discloses a matrix polymer in the non-aqueous solid electrolyte A (see above rejection of claim 1), but does not disclose the possible polymers.
Lee discloses non-aqueous electrolyte for a battery including a polymer matric ([0006]) and teaches the polymer to be polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF) ([0037]). Lee further teaches PVdF as a suitable polymer as it is generally used for electrolyte material and has ion conductivity ([0036]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to use PVdF as the polymer material as taught by Lee in the electrolyte disclosed by Hirose as PVdF is generally used for electrolyte material and has ion conductivity.
With respect to claim 6, Hirose discloses the partition layer includes a non-aqueous solid electrolyte A (see above rejection of claim 1), but does not disclose it further includes a non-aqueous electrolyte B with different components than electrolyte A.
Lee discloses non-aqueous electrolyte for a battery including a first polymer electrolyte ([0006]) and teaches a second polymer electrolyte, detailing the first and second polymer electrolyte have different components ([0008]). Lee further teaches using different components supplements the characteristics of the electrode and to realize the characteristics of the electrode active material particles ([0034]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to include a second non-aqueous solid electrolyte with different components than the first non-aqueous solid electrolyte as taught by Lee to the battery disclosed by Hirose in order to supplement the characteristics of the electrode and to realize the characteristics of the electrode active material particles.
With respect to claim 7, modified Hirose discloses a battery with a non-aqueous solid electrolyte A with different components than a non-aqueous solid electrolyte B (see above rejection of claim 6), and that the preferred electrolyte polymer for either solid electrolyte is PVdF (see above rejection of claim 5; [0035]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to use PVdF as taught by Lee as the polymer in the non-aqueous solid electrolyte B disclosed by modified Hirose as PVdF is generally used for electrolyte material and has ion conductivity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN E BERRESFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-0641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (572)272-1330. 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.
/J.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights