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 .
Drawings
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: 106. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 6, line 27 in specification the “LiTF” (Lithium trifluoromethanesulfonate), should be corrected to LiOTf.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 14, 24, and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 and 24 recite “LiTF” (Lithium trifluoromethanesulfonate), should be LiOTf.
Claim 14 recites “the shear media is a at least one” should be “the shear media is at least one”.
Claim 29 recites “germanium, and wherein and the cathode” should be “germanium, and wherein the cathode”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-34 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, 2, 5-16, and 19-33 recites “high molecular weight polymer”, is a relative term that renders the claim vague and indefinite as it does not provide what qualifies the molecular weight as “high”.
Claims 3, 4, 17, 18 and 34 are similarly rejected as they are dependent on claim 1 and 15.
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, 2, 5, 7-11, 15, 16, 19, 21-25, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (High-Voltage sulfolane...) for prior art discussion, see attached document.
Regarding claim 1, 2, and 7 Wang discloses a gel polymer electrolyte comprising of polymer polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA600, figure 1 (a), para. 003) having a molecular weight of 600 (para. 003, figure 1 (a)) which is a derivative of polyethylene glycol (PEG) mixed with sulfolane and lithium salt (LiDFOB, figure 1 (a), abstract, para. 003). PEG and polyethylene oxide (PEO) are the same polymer differing only in nomenclature applied by molecular weight there by meeting the limitation of claims 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 5 Wang discloses the weight percentage of the high molecular weight polymer relative to an overall weight of the dry gel polymer electrolyte is equal to 9.3.
When sulfolane wt % = 80 (para. 003) and LiDFOB wt % = 10.7 ( para. 003, 007), the weight percentage of the high molecular weight polymer = 100 – (80+10.7) = 9.3 wt % falling with in the claimed range of 0.5 wt% and 15 wt %.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Wang discloses the weight percentage of the sulfolane content relative to an overall weight of the dry gel polymer electrolyte is controlled to be up to 80 wt. % (para. 003) overlapping with the claimed range. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 10, Wang discloses lithium salt LiDFOB (figure 1 (a), para. 003).
Regarding claim 11, Wang discloses the weight percentage of lithium salt at 10.7 % ( para. 003, 007), overlapping with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 15, 16, and 21 Wang discloses an electrochemical cell (para. 003, figure 1) with an anode (lithium piece, para. 003), a cathode (NCM811 electrode sheet, para. 003). Wang further discloses the gel polymer electrolyte disposed between the anode and cathode (figure 1 (c), para. 003). As discussed above with respect to claim 1, 2, and 7 Wang discloses all the claim limitation of claims 15, 16 and 21.
Regarding claim 19, as discussed above with respect to claim 5 and 15 applies here so Wang discloses all the limitations of claim 19.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, as discussed above with respect to claims 8, 9 and 15 applies here so Wang discloses all the limitations of claims 22 and 23.
Regarding claim 24, as discussed above with respect to claim 10 and 15 applies here so Wang discloses all the limitations of claim 24.
Regarding claim 25, as discussed above with respect to claim 11 and 15 applies here so Wang discloses all the limitations of claim 25.
Regarding claim 29, Wang discloses an electrochemical cell with a lithium anode (lithium piece, para. 003, figure 1) and cathode comprises of lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NCM811, para. 003, figure 1).
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 3, 4, 12-14, 17, 18, 26-28, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (High-Voltage sulfolane...) for prior art discussion, see attached document, in view of Munshi (US Pat. 6645675).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Wang fails to disclose the molecular weight of the polymer in the claimed range.
Munshi discloses a solid polymer electrolyte which is dry (abstract, col. 9, lines 43-55) and has high molecular weight (Molecular Weight - 5 x 106, col 19, lines 44-46, col. 20, line 38-41) complexed with lithium salt (col. 14, lines 65-67). The molecular weight of the polymer disclosed by Munshi overlaps with the claimed range. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
.Munshi further discloses polymer electrolytes are made non-tacky and stronger by selecting polymers of higher molecular weights and incorporating appropriate quantities of the inorganic filler material (col. 20, line 38-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify wang’s polymer gel electrolyte as taught by Munshi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use high molecular weight polymer and complex with lithium to make the dry polymer gel electrolyte non-tacky and stronger.
Regarding claim 12, Wang fails to discloses the weight percentage of the lithium salt relative to an overall weight of the dry gel polymer electrolyte is between 15 wt% and 25 wt %.
Munshi discloses the weight percentage of the lithium salt is 11- 25 % relative to the total weight of the solid electrolyte (col. 7, lines 32-33). Munshi further discloses such an electrolyte composition has high stability with increased temperature, mechanically stronger, provide a commercially feasible solid polymer electrolyte with good ionic conductivity at room temperature and below, they can be manufactured in ultra-thin film form, are non-tacky, are pin-hole free, and provide low resistance and excellent conformal and flexible design capability (col. 5, lines 22- 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify wang’s polymer gel electrolyte as taught by Munshi to arrive at an electrolyte which possess chemical stability, which permits their use with lithium metal as the anode of a polymer electrolyte battery.
Regarding claim 13 and 14, Wang fails to teach the dry gel polymer electrolyte further comprising of a shear media dispersed.
Munshi discloses a shear media (filler) fumed silica or alumina dispersed in the gel polymer electrolyte (col. 17, lines 1-10). Munshi further discloses the filler enhances the ionic conductivity of the polymer materials by at least one order of magnitude (col. 17, lines 7-9). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited “shear media” dispersed in the dry gel polymer electrolyte” encompasses dispersed inorganic filler disclosed by Munshi as described above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify wang’s polymer gel electrolyte as taught by Munshi to arrive at an electrolyte to add a shear media to enhance the ionic conductivity of the polymer materials by at least one order of magnitude
Regarding claim 17 and 18, the combination of Wang and Munshi with respect to claims 3 and 4 applies here and for reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Wang and Munshi with respect to claim 12 applies here and for reasons set for the above.
Regarding claims 27 and 28, the combination of Wang and Munshi with respect to claim13 and 14 applies here and for reasons set for the above
Regarding claim 31, Wang fails to disclose a thickness of the at least one dry gel polymer electrolyte layer is between or equal to 5 µm and 100 µm.
Munshi discloses the thickness of the at least one dry gel polymer electrolyte layer is about 0.2 µm to 100 µm (col. 26, lines 13-15). Munshi further discloses such a bipolar electrode construction increases the energy further (col. 25. Lines 52-54).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add thickness of the dry gel polymer electrolyte layer as taught by Munshi to increase the energy further.
Regarding claim 32, Wang fails to disclose anode and cathode in a stacked, wound or a rolled configuration.
Munshi discloses an electrochemical cell with the cathode and anode wound or alternatively stacked or laminated (col. 23, lines 56-68, col. 24, lines 1-5, figure 4). Munshi further discloses a tightly wound construction removes air from between the layers, and allows enhanced and continuous contact between the layers. (col. 24, lines 4-8).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the electrodes of battery disclosed by Wang to use tightly wound construction of the anode and cathode with the polymer electrolyte as taught by Munshi to enhance and have continuous contact between the layers.
Claims 6, 20, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (High-Voltage sulfolane..., for prior art discussion see attached document) in view of Munshi (US Pat. 6645675) as applied to claims 1, 5, and 15 above, and further in view of Tamirisa (US PG Pub. 2019/0058214).
Wang and Munshi are relied upon as described above.
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Wang and Munshi fails to disclose the weight percentage of the high molecular weight polymer relative to an overall weight of the dry gel polymer electrolyte is between or equal to 1 wt% and 7.5 wt %.
Tamirisa discloses a liquid polymer electrolyte composition comprising of polymer like polyethylene oxide having a molecular weight of 100000 to 8000000 Da (abstract, para. 0027), a lithium salt (para. 0023) and solvent which include sulfolane (para. 0025).
Tamirisa further discloses the polymer is present in the electrolyte composition in an amount of from 2 to 25 weight percent based on the total weight of the electrolyte (para. 009, 0028) overlapping with the claimed range. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Tamirisa further discloses such an electrolyte compositions have relatively high viscosities, low volatility, low and stable interfacial impedance with electrodes and low permeability and have relatively high ionic conductivity (para. 0005).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination wang and Munshi’s polymer gel electrolyte in the electrochemical cell as taught by Tamirisa to arrive at an electrolyte which possess high viscosities, low volatility, low and stable interfacial impedance with electrodes and low permeability and have relatively high ionic conductivity.
Regarding claim 30, Wang discloses an electrochemical cell with a ( para. 003, figure 1) a gel polymer electrolyte (GPE, figure 1, para. 003) disposed between the anode and cathode.
Wang fails to discloses a second polymer electrolyte layer and a separator disposed between the first and the second dry gel polymer electrolyte layers.
Munshi disclose at least one polymer electrolyte layer (ref. 240, figure 3) disposed on the anode (ref. 270) and a second polymer electrolyte layer (ref. 240, figure 3) disposed on the cathode (ref. 250, col. 26, lines 6-24, figure 3).
Wang and Munshi fails to disclose a separator disposed between the first and the second dry gel electrolyte layers.
Tamirisa discloses a separator disposed the positive and negative electrodes (para. 0042). The combination of Wang, Munshi and Tamirisa discloses all the limitations of the claim. Tamirisa further discloses dispensing electrolyte on the cathode and separator and maintaining a margin on the separator to prevent internal shorting (para. 0062).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of wang and Munshi’s electrochemical cell as taught by Tamirisa to prevent shorting.
Regarding claim 33 and 34, Wang and Munshi fails to disclose implantable medical device comprising the electrochemical cell.
Tamirisa discloses electrochemical cells that can be used in implantable medical devices including neurostimulator (para. 0005, 0039). The cell for an implantable device as disclosed by the combination of Wang, Munshi and Tamirisa would be capable of being implanted in the cochlear region, thereby meeting the presently claimed intended use. a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned (MPEP 2111.02).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISWARYA MATHEW whose telephone number is (571)272-9515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, ALICIA CHEVALIER can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/I.M./
Iswarya MathewExaminer, Art Unit 1788
06/29/2026
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights