DETAILED ACTION
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 and in the reply filed on 08/04/26 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwon et al. (US20120115040A1, as cited in the IDS dated 12/06/23).
Regarding claim 1, Kwon discloses a polymer composition comprising(¶[0048]):
a) a matrix comprising an elastomeric polymer(i.e. TMPEOTA, ¶[00049], Fig. 3 see tensile strength of material);
b) a plurality of plastic crystals dispersed within the matrix to form a three-dimensional interconnected phase of plastic crystals(¶[0049]-[0050] see plastic crystal within polymer matrix resulting in a three-dimensional interconnected phase), and
wherein the polymer composition exhibits an ionic conductivity of at least about 1.1 mS/cm at about 20° C(see value of 2.4 mS/cm at 25° C in Table 1 which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as above 1.1 at 20° C).
Regarding claim 12, Kwon discloses the polymer composition of claim 1 and further discloses the plastic crystals are derived from succinonitrile (¶[0049]).
Regarding claim 13, Kwon discloses the polymer composition of claim 1 and further discloses the cation to be Li and the anion to be bis-trifluoromethanesulfonylimide aka bistriflimide¶[0049]).
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.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 13, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27, 33, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (US20120115040A1, as cited in the IDS dated 12/06/23).
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 6 Kwon discloses the polymer composition of claim 1 and further discloses the elastomeric polymer with monomers of Formula (I)(methyl acrylate or butyl acrylate ¶[0014]).
Regarding claim 13 Kwon discloses the polymer composition of claim 1 and further discloses a metal salt wherein the cation is lithium and wherein the anion is bis-trifluoromethanesulfonylimide aka bistriflimide¶[0049]) wherein the cation Li has an inherent ion transference number of greater than 0.4.
Regarding claim 20, 24, and 27, Kwon discloses a polymer composition formed by polymerizing a mixture(¶[0048]) comprising
a) one or more monomers of Formula (I)(methyl acrylate or butyl acrylate ¶[0014])
b) a plurality of plastic crystals(¶[0049]); and
c) a salt AB, wherein A is lithium and wherein B is bis-trifluoromethanesulfonylimide aka bistriflimide¶[0049]).
Regarding claim 21, Kwon discloses the polymer composition of claim 20 and further discloses a crosslinker divinyl benzene (¶[0013]).
Regarding claim 23, Kwon discloses the polymer composition of claim 20 and further discloses the plastic crystals are derived from succinonitrile (¶[0049]).
Regarding claim 33, Kwon discloses the polymer composition of claim 20 and further discloses a photoinitiator (¶[0040]).
Regarding claim 39, Kwon discloses the polymer composition of claim 20 and further discloses a polymer containing butyl acrylate (¶[0014]), polyethylene glycol diacrylate (claim 7), succinonitrile (¶[0049]) and a salt, lithium and bis-trifluoromethanesulfonylimide aka bistriflimide (i.e. LiTFSI, ¶[0049]).
Claim 39 is considered product-by-process claim including syntheses of the polymer under homogeneous conditions. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 40, Kwon discloses the polymer composition of claim 20 and further discloses a plurality of plastic crystals dispersed within the matrix to form a three-dimensional interconnected phase of plastic crystals(¶[0049]-[0050] see plastic crystal within polymer matrix resulting in a three-dimensional interconnected phase), and wherein the polymer composition exhibits an ionic conductivity of at least about 1.1 mS/cm at about 20° C(see value of 2.4 mS/cm at 25° C in Table 1 which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as above 1.1 at 20° C).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (US20120115040A1, as cited in the IDS dated 12/06/23) as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of He et al. (High Conductivity, Lithium Ion Conducting Polymer Electrolyte Based on Hydrocarbon Backbone with Pendent Carbonate, as cited in the IDS dated 03/18/24).
Regarding claim 35, Kwon discloses the polymer composition of claim 20 and further discloses a photoinitiator (¶[0040]) but does not disclose wherein the initiator comprises: azobisisobutyronitrile, benzoyl peroxide, or a combination thereof; or bis(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)-phenylphosphine oxide (Irgacure 819), 2-hydroxyl-2-methyl-1-phenyl-1-propanone, methyl benzoylformate, Hydroxycyclohexyl phenyl ketone (Igracure 184), or a combination thereof.
He, related to Li-ion conducting polymers, teaches a polymer containing acrylates, lithium salts and succinonitrile using phenylbis(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)phosphine oxide(i.e. bis(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)-phenylphosphine oxide) as a photo initiator(page 1, first paragraph of Experimental section).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized using the initiator as taught by He would have resulted in a fast and efficient photo-initiation rate(page 3, first paragraph of Results and Discussion section).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used the initiator of He in the polymer of Kwon to produce a fast and efficient photo-initiation rate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/K.J.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1726 /RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights