DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is responsive to national-stage application filed 09/22/2023. Following entry of the concurrently filed preliminary amendment, claims 1-14, 16-20, and 22 remain 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 .
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.
Objection – Drawings
The drawings are objected to because where, as here, the drawings consist of a single drawing view, the view must not be numbered and the abbreviation “FIG” must not appear. See 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1). A corrected drawing sheet in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) is 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
The drawings also 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: 100, 102. Corrected drawing sheet(s) 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.
Objection – Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: all references to “Figure 1” (see, e.g., ¶¶ [0002] and [0013]) should be amended to refer to –the figure-- so as to secure consistency with the replacement drawing sheet required supra.
The specification also is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: lack of antecedent basis for the subject matter of claim 19, specifically the limitation of “wherein the film (FGE) has a thickness of at least 50 µm” as recited in the final line thereof.
Objection – Claims
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: omission of a comma between “LiBF6” and “LiClO4” and between “LiClO4” and “LiPF6” in line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 9, 14, and 16 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.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites “lower aliphatic lithium carboxylates” in line 5. The term “lower” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, nor does the specification provide a definition or standard for ascertaining the requisite aliphatic chain length, and, thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, it is not clear from the antecedent disclosure what “lower” is intended to cover in terms of number of carbon atoms in eligible aliphatic carboxylates of Li. For purposes of substantive examination, the term is being construed broadly to encompass aliphatic carboxylates of any arbitrary chain length consistent with the provision of a “liquid composition” as claimed (cf., claim 1, first line).
Regarding Claims 14/16, the claims provide the limitation to “a wet film [film (Fw)]” and “the wet film (Fw)” in lines 4 and 1, respectively. The term “wet” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term is not defined by either claim, nor does the specification provide a definition or standard for ascertaining the requisite moisture content. In particular, it is not clear from the antecedent disclosure what “wet” is intended to encompass in terms of permissible moisture content values for the film (Fw). For purposes of substantive examination, the term is being construed broadly to encompass films containing any arbitrary degree of moisture capable of being dried to obtain the recited product, i.e., “a self-supported gelled polymer electrolyte film [film (FGE)]”.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gohel et al is cited as pertinent to gel polymer electrolyte (GPE) based on poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) (PVDF-HFP) and polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) incorporated with different concentrations of LiClO4 and of mixture of propylene carbonate (PC) and ethylene carbonate (EC). Specific compositions of the GPE system are described (see Table 1) wherein the PVDF-HFP and PMMA are in each instance present in equal weight percentages (i.e., 1:1 ratio by weight). The citation does not teach a GPE wherein the ratio by weight of PVDF-HFP to PMMA is at least 3.0.
Cui et al is cited as pertinent to preparation of PVDF/PMMA blend microporous membranes via thermally induced phase separation process (Abs.). Solidified samples of blend membranes and corresponding polymer electrolytes are described (section 2. Experimental), including polymer electrolyte obtained by immersing a blend membrane comprising 80/20 PVDF/PMMA (wt./wt.) in liquid electrolyte containing 1 mol/l LiPF6 in dimethyl carbonate/ethyl methyl carbonate/ethylene carbonate (1/1/1 wt./wt./wt.) (Table 1: Code M2). The citation does not teach a liquid composition or a self-supported gelled polymer electrolyte film, each comprising at least one vinylidene fluoride copolymer comprising recurring units derived from vinylidene fluoride in an amount exceeding 50 % mol of all its recurring units.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 10-13, 17-20 and 22 are allowed. Balance of the claims would be allowable if amended or rewritten to overcome the objection (re: claim 9) and rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Pending claims are deemed to distinguish over the closest prior art to Nicotera et al (Applicant’s NPL Cite No. 1).
Nicotera et al disclose polymeric gel electrolytes based on a blend of poly(methyl methacrylate)/poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PMMA/PVdF), ethylene carbonate/propylene carbonate (EC/PC) as plasticizer and Li perchlorate as electrolyte (Abs.). Sample preparation for the polymer blend electrolytes involved dissolving the required amounts of PMMA and PVdF in anhydrous tetrahydrofuran (THF) followed by the addition of predetermined amount of LiClO4 solution electrolyte in a mixture of EC and PC with a molar ratio EC/PC of 8/3.5. Membranes in film-form were obtained by casting the resulting solution on a glass plate at room temperature as detailed in Section 2.1. Five PMMA/PVdF blend ratios were selected to study the composition dependent properties of the films, viz., 80:20, 70:30, 60:40, 40:60 and 30:70 (p. 582, final full para. of left-hand column), wherein the 30:70 ratio equates to a 2.33:1 PVdF/PMMA blend ratio.
Present claims 1 and 17 distinguish over Nicotera et al primarily by stipulating that the ratio by weight of polymer (F) to polymer (M) is at least 3.0. As noted above, Nicotera et al describe PMMA/PVdF blend ratios no higher than 30:70, reflecting a weight ratio of PVdF to PMMA of 2.33:1, and provide no significant motivation to increase the proportion of PVdF in the blend composition to arrive at the claimed weight ratio of polymer (F) to polymer (M). In fact, Nicotera et al identify the 60:40 PMMA/PVDF blend composition as the most favorable in ionic conduction (page 588, first full para of left-hand column). Moreover, the Applicant has demonstrated criticality for the claimed weight ratio in terms of superior optical properties (transmittance/haze) for a gelled film (Film 4-A) wherein the ratio by weight of Polymer (F) (Solef® 21510 PVDF) to Polymer (M) (PMMA) is 3.3, compared to a gelled film (Film 5C-A) wherein the ratio by weight of the same Polymer (F) to Polymer (M) is 2.2 (see Table 4 of as-filed specification). Comparative Film 5C-A is considered fairly representative of the closest blend composition of Nicotera et al, and since the publication is silent concerning optical properties of the described gel polymer electrolytes, the comparative evidence is deemed probative of non-obviousness.
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/07-11-26
Prosecution Insights