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, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 9/4/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/4/2026.
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 1-8 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the cross-linkable functional group” in line 8 and in line 9. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to which among “a cross-linkable function group” recited in line 2, “a cross-linkable functional group” recited in line 6 and “cross-linkable groups” in line 7-8 said limitation refers to.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the cross-linkable functional group”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to which among “a cross-linkable function group” recited in line 2, “a cross-linkable functional group” recited in line 6 and “cross-linkable groups” in line 7-8 in claim 1 said limitation refers to.
Further, dependent claims 2-8 are rendered indefinite due to their dependency on indefinite claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3, 5-6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li, Chen et al. (2021), “A PVA/LiCl/PEO interpenetrating composite electrolyte with a three-dimensional dual-network for all-solid-state flexible aluminum–air batteries,” RSC Advances, Royal Society of Chemistry, vol. 11, pages 39476-39483.
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a polymer solid electrolyte (see Title, Abstract) comprising:
a polymer containing a cross-linkable functional group (PVA, see Title, Abstract);
a lithium salt (LiCl, see Title, Abstract); and
a solvent comprising a first solvent and a second solvent (ethanol, water, etc., see p. 37477),
wherein the polymer solid electrolyte comprises a cross-linked structure; and an amorphous polymer chain containing a cross-linkable functional group (cross-linked, see p.39477-39478, 39482),
wherein the cross-linked structure comprises (a) a cross-linkage between cross-linkable functional groups, (b) a cross-linkage between the cross-linkable functional group and the first solvent, and (c) a bond between the cross-linkable functional group and the lithium salt (cross-linked, see p.39477-39478, 39482).
Further regarding claim 1 reciting “a liquid phase evaporation rate (M(t)), which is an amount of evaporation of the solvent contained in the polymer solid electrolyte over time, is defined by the following Equation 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
110
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein M∞ is the maximum value or saturation value of a liquid phase included in the polymer solid electrolyte, and M∞ is 0.2 to 0.6,
D is a diffusion coefficient of the liquid phase in the polymer solid electrolyte, and is 10−9 cm2/s to 10−6 cm2/s,
L is a thickness of the polymer solid electrolyte, and is 5 μm to 500 μm, and
t is a time at which the liquid phase evaporation rate is measured” which is directed to a specific property of the claim polymer solid electrolyte, the publication of the instant application discloses a preparation method of the polymer solid electrolyte including preparing a PVA aqueous solution, adding lithium salt and performing a freeze thaw method to prepare the polymer solid electrolyte. It is noted that once a polymer solid electrolyte is disclosed to be prepared using a PVA solution undergoing a freeze thaw method (15 wt% PVA solution was frozen at - 18 C for 24 h and thawed for 5 h, and this was repeated 4 times; then, PVA was soaked in the 6 wt%, 8 wt%, and 10 wt% LiCl solutions for 10 h and dried at room temperature and soaked in a second solvent, see Li on p.39477), and therefore is substantially the same as the polymer solid electrolyte of claim 1, it will, inherently, display recited properties (see MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Li further discloses the content of the first solvent is 1 to 1000 ppm (evaporation of water, see p. 39478, Fig. 3c).
Regarding claim 3, Li discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Li further discloses the first solvent comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of water, ethanol, isopropyl alcohol, dimethyl sulfoxide, acetonitrile, NMP, a co-solvent of a mixture of water and alcohols, and a co-solvent of a mixture of water and dimethyl sulfoxide (ethanol, water, etc., see p. 37477).
Regarding claim 5, Li discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Li further discloses the cross-linkable functional group comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of a hydroxyl group, a carboxyl group, and an amide group (hydroxyl group, see p.39477; carboxyl group, see p.39478, 39480).
Regarding claim 6, Li discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Li further discloses the polymer containing the cross-linkable functional group comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), gelatin, methylcellulose, agar, dextran, poly(vinyl pyrrolidone), poly(acryl amide), starch-carboxymethyl cellulose, hyaluronic acid-methylcellulose, chitosan, poly(N-isopropylacrylamide), and amino-terminated polyethylene glycol (amino-terminated PEG) (PVA, see Title, Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Li discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Li further discloses the lithium salt comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of LiTFSI (Lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulphonyl)imide), LiFSI(Lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide), LiNO3, LiOH, LiCl, LiBr, LiI, LiCIO4, LiBF4, LiB10Cl10, LiPF6, LiCF3SO3, LiCF3CO2, LiAsF6, LiSbF6, LiAlCl4, CH3SO3Li, CF3SO3Li, LiSCN, and LiC(CF3SO2)3 (LiCl, see Title, Abstract).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Chen et al. (2021), “A PVA/LiCl/PEO interpenetrating composite electrolyte with a three-dimensional dual-network for all-solid-state flexible aluminum–air batteries,” RSC Advances, Royal Society of Chemistry, vol. 11, pages 39476-39483., as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 8 above, in view of JPH06150940A, refer to English machine translation.
Regarding claim 4, Li discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Li does not disclose the second solvent comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), vinylene carbonate (VC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), tetrahydrofuran (THF), 2-methyltetrahydrofuran (2-MeTHF), dioxolane (DOX), dimethoxyethane (DME), diethoxyethane (DEE), γ-butyrolactone (GBL), acetonitrile (AN), and sulfolane.
JPH06150940A discloses a gel electrolyte made of polyvinylalcohol containing electrolyte, wherein a solvent such as propylene carbonate can be substituted for the purpose of improving ion conductivity (see Title, Abstract, [0008]).
Li and JPH06150940A are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely gel/solid electrolytes made of polyvinyl alcohol.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li by using propylene carbonate as the second solvent because JPH06150940A teaches improved ion conductivity.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Chen et al. (2021), “A PVA/LiCl/PEO interpenetrating composite electrolyte with a three-dimensional dual-network for all-solid-state flexible aluminum–air batteries,” RSC Advances, Royal Society of Chemistry, vol. 11, pages 39476-39483., as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 8 above.
Regarding claim 7, Li discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further regarding claim 7 reciting “the molar ratio ([Li]/[G]) of lithium ([Li]) of the lithium salt to the cross-linkable functional group ([G]) of the polymer is more than 0.1 and less than 0.5”, because Li teaches an electrolyte salt concentration in the range of 6-8 wt%, the molecular chains curl and become smaller; Li+ is prone to intramolecular cross-linking with the polymer molecules, forming a large number of tight cross-linked polymer coils, thereby improving the overall mechanical properties of the composite GPE; although the introduction of salt ions is necessary to obtain high conductivity, the hydrogen bonds between polymer chains will be destroyed if the salt concentration is too high; therefore, when the electrolyte concentration exceeds 8 wt%, the overall mechanical properties of the composite GPE decrease (see p.39477), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the lithium salt concentration in order to arrive at a desired balance between conductivity and mechanical properties of the GPE (MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM.
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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at (571)270-3879. 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.
/James Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 9/17/2026
Prosecution Insights