CTNF 18/363,052 CTNF 85426 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Examiner’s Comments The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the references as applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Election/Restrictions 08-25 AIA Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 5/1/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims does not present a serious material additional burden on the Office . This is not found persuasive because the product as claimed can be made by another process as disclosed by the examiner, which is different than the process as presently claimed. Since the process is distinct from the claimed article, a different search of classes is needed. This would place an undue search burden on the examiner . The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Drawings 06-22-07 AIA The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: (72) and (300) . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 3, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Akahira et al. (JP 2006-175415) . Regarding claim 1, Akahira discloses a method for manufacturing a gel membrane of a battery cell, comprising supplying a first substrate to a first roller ([0001], [0048], Fig. 5-6), heating a gel membrane solution in a tank, wherein the gel membrane solution in a tank, wherein the gel membrane solution includes a polymer and a liquid electrolyte comprising one or more lithium salts ([0007], [0038-0041], [0071]), arranging a slot die within a predetermined distance of the first substrate located on the first roller [0044-0048] Fig. 5-6), pumping the gel membrane solution into an inlet of the slot die, depositing a gel membrane layer from an outlet of the slot die onto the first substrate supported by the first roller ([0044-0048], [0060], Fig. 5-6), and cooling the gel membrane layer on the first substrate [0046, 0049]. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately envisage that there is a degree of cooling or drying stage subsequently after depositing a gel membrane layer onto the first substrate. Regarding claim 3, please see Fig. 5-6 and [0045-0049]. Regarding claim 5, please see [0041]. Regarding claim 6, please see [0038-0041]. Regarding claim 7, please see [0040]. Regarding claim 8, please see [0039] . 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 3-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Naarmann et al. (DE 10118639 B4) . Regarding claim 1, Naarmann discloses a method for manufacturing a gel membrane of a battery cell, comprising supplying a first substrate to a first roller ([0039], [0050-0051], Fig. 2), heating a gel membrane solution in a tank, wherein the gel membrane solution in a tank, wherein the gel membrane solution includes a polymer and a liquid electrolyte comprising one or more lithium salts [0050], arranging a slot die within a predetermined distance of the first substrate located on the first roller ([0046], Fig. 2), pumping the gel membrane solution into an inlet of the slot die, depositing a gel membrane layer from an outlet of the slot die onto the first substrate supported by the first roller ([0039], [0050]), and cooling the gel membrane layer on the first substrate [0011]. Regarding claim 3, please see Fig. 2. Regarding claims 4-5, please see [0022] and [0049-0050]. Regarding claim 6-8, please see [0036-0038] and [0050]. Regarding claim 10, please see [0039]. Given that the temperature of the slot die is maintained at 130-160°C, one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately envisage that the tank must be substantially around that temperature as well in order for the slot die to be maintained in that temperature for the gel membrane solution . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 4, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akahira et al. (JP 2006-175415) . Regarding claim 2, Akahira discloses the outlet of the slot die and the first substrate with a distance or gap between thereof (Fig. 5-6), however, is silent that the gap is 1-100 µm as presently claimed. The examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as gap distance between the first substrate and the outlet of the slot die, through routine experimentation, especially given the knowledge in the gap distance impact the placement of the gel membrane layer onto the first substrate thereby can impact the overall battery properties. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re After, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gap between the outlet of the slot die and the first substrate of Akahira to be 1-100 µm, since the gap is a known results effective variable in making a gel membrane. Regarding claim 4, Akahira discloses a polymer and the gel membrane solution as claimed, however, fails to explicitly disclose the concentration ratio. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention would have arrived at the claimed invention by routine experimentation alone, without exercising undue experimentation. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue known option within his or her technical grasp. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to optimize the concentration between gel membrane solution and polymer since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed amount is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivate to optimize the concentration ratio dependent the type of batteries with degree of energy densities. Regarding claim 10, Akahira fails to disclose the heating temperature of the tank and the slot die as claimed. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention would have arrived at the claimed invention by routine experimentation alone, without exercising undue experimentation. Akahira discloses that at room temperature, the gel polymer is solidified [0010, 0071], thereby one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would optimize the temperature of both the tank and slot die would have been obvious in order to prevent the solidification of the gel polymer. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch , 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Regarding claim 11, Akahira discloses that the method comprises of a drying unit, however, fails to explicitly disclose the temperature as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to be cooled at any temperature such as room temperature, which is 20-25°C, without undue experimentation and with reasonable expectation of success. The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed temperature is critical and has unexpected results 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akahira et al. (JP 2006-175415) in view of Saito et al. (US 2011/0045357) . Akahira discloses a polymer and the liquid electrolyte comprising PAN, LiBF4, EC, and GBL [0039-0041], however, fails to disclose all the claimed limitation. Saito discloses a gel membrane comprising VEC, VC, PAN, LITFSI, LiBF4, EC, and GBL (all claims, [0042-0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Akahira’s polymer and liquid electrolyte to comprise of VEC, VC, PAN, LiTFSI, LiBf4, EC, and GBL, since Saito discloses that these are known materials to be used in an electrolyte in order to ensure excellent capacity characteristics, cycle characteristic and preservability in electrochemical devices [0043] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naarmann et al. (DE 10118639 B4) . Regarding claim 2, Naarmann discloses the outlet of the slot die and the first substrate with a distance or gap between thereof (Fig. 2), however, is silent that the gap is 1-100 µm as presently claimed. The examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as gap distance between the first substrate and the outlet of the slot die, through routine experimentation, especially given the knowledge in the gap distance impact the placement of the gel membrane layer onto the first substrate thereby can impact the overall battery properties. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re After, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gap between the outlet of the slot die and the first substrate of Naarmann to be 1-100 µm, since the gap is a known results effective variable in making a gel membrane. Regarding claim 11, Naarmann discloses that the gel membrane is cooled by dry air, however, fails to explicitly disclose the temperature as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to be cooled at any temperature such as room temperature, which is 20-25°C, without undue experimentation and with reasonable expectation of success. The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed temperature is critical and has unexpected results 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naarmann et al. (DE 10118639 B4) in view of Saito et al. (US 2011/0045357) . Naarman discloses a polymer and the liquid electrolyte comprising LiBF4, EC, and GBL, however, fails to disclose all the claimed limitation. Saito discloses a gel membrane comprising VEC, VC, PAN, LITFSI, LiBF4, EC, and GBL (all claims, [0042-0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Naarman’s polymer and liquid electrolyte to comprise of VEC, VC, PAN, LiTFSI, LiBf4, EC, and GBL, since Saito discloses that these are known materials to be used in an electrolyte in order to ensure excellent capacity characteristics, cycle characteristic and preservability in electrochemical devices [0043] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naarmann et al. (DE 10118639 B4) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2019/0341605) . Regarding claim 12, Naarman discloses a polymer and the liquid electrolyte comprising LiBF4, EC, and GBL, however, fails to disclose all the claimed limitation. Tanaka discloses a gel electrolyte comprising PAN, LiTFSI, LiBF4, EC, and GBL [0069-0072]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Naarman’s polymer and liquid electrolyte to comprise of PAN, LiTFSI, LiBf4, EC, and GBL, since Takana discloses that these are known materials to be used in an electrolyte in order to improve battery characteristics [0069]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA N CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5835. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F. 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)272-1291. 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. Linda Chau /L.N.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1785 /Holly Rickman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785 Application/Control Number: 18/363,052 Page 2 Art Unit: 1785 Application/Control Number: 18/363,052 Page 3 Art Unit: 1785 Application/Control Number: 18/363,052 Page 4 Art Unit: 1785 Application/Control Number: 18/363,052 Page 5 Art Unit: 1785 Application/Control Number: 18/363,052 Page 6 Art Unit: 1785 Application/Control Number: 18/363,052 Page 7 Art Unit: 1785 Application/Control Number: 18/363,052 Page 8 Art Unit: 1785 Application/Control Number: 18/363,052 Page 9 Art Unit: 1785 Application/Control Number: 18/363,052 Page 10 Art Unit: 1785 Application/Control Number: 18/363,052 Page 11 Art Unit: 1785
Prosecution Insights