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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Otani et al. (JP 2003251178 A, hereinafter “Otani”; listed in the IDS filed 3 July 2025; using the attached English machine translation for citations).
Regarding claim 1, Otani teaches an electrolyte (see [0043], [0046], and [0063]) for a lithium secondary battery, the electrolyte comprising:
a polymer electrolyte containing a hydrocarbon-based polymer compound (styrene sulfonic acid, see [0063]) including a cationic functional group (1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium cation, see [0063]);
a flame-retardant liquid electrolyte (propylene carbonate dissolved in LiPF6; see [0063]); and
a cross-linking agent (trimethylolpropane trialyl ether, see [0063]).
Regarding claim 2, Otani teaches wherein the hydrocarbon-based polymer compound contains a hydrocarbon structural unit having 6 to 20 carbon atoms (styrene sulfonic acid, see [0063]), which contains at least one cationic functional group (1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium cation, see [0063]).
Regarding claim 3, Otani teaches wherein the cationic functional group comprises at least one cation selected from nitrogen cations (1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium cation, see [0063]), oxygen cations, and sulfur cations.
Regarding claim 5, Otani teaches wherein the hydrocarbon-based polymer (styrene sulfonic acid, see [0063]) compound further comprises an anion (LiPF6 would give a PF6- anion; see [0063]) as a counter ion to the cation contained in the cationic functional group.
Regarding claim 6, Otani teaches wherein the anion is the anion of the lithium salt contained in the electrolyte (PF6- anion, see [0063]).
Regarding claim 7, Otani teaches wherein the flame-retardant liquid electrolyte comprises at least one solvent selected from the group consisting of carbonate-based compounds, phosphate-based compounds, and ionic liquids; and lithium salt (propylene carbonate dissolved in LiPF6; see [0063]).
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.
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otani (JP 2003251178 A; listed in the IDS filed 3 July 2025; using the attached English machine translation for citations).
Regarding claim 9, Otani teaches wherein the polymer electrolyte is contained in an amount of 30 to 60% by weight (see [0007]), and the cross-linking agent is contained in an amount of 2 to 30% by weight (see [0030]), based on the total weight of the electrolyte.
Otani is silent to wherein the flame-retardant liquid electrolyte is contained in an amount of 30 to 50% by weight (see [0043]), based on the total weight of the electrolyte. However, if there was too little liquid electrolyte, the polymer electrolyte would have too high of an internal resistance. On the other hand, if the liquid electrolyte was too great, then there may be leakage which could be a safety issue. Therefore, there must be an optimum amount of liquid electrolyte and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to discover through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otani as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dai et al. (US 2021/0194054, hereinafter “Dai”).
Regarding claim 8, Otani teaches wherein the cross-linking agent includes trimethylolpropane triacrylate (see [0027]), but is silent to wherein the cross-linking agent is selected from the group consisting of ethoxylated trimethylolpropane triacrylate, trimethylolpropane ethoxytriacrylate, dipentaerythritol penta/hexa-acrylate and tris(2-hydroxyethyl) isocyanurate triacrylate.
Dai teaches gel electrolytes wherein the one or more crosslinking agents are selected from the group consisting of: trimethylolpropane triacrylate (TMPTA), pentaerythritol triacrylate, ethoxylated trimethylolpropane triacrylate, alkyloyl-modified dipentaerythritol triacrylate, ethoxylated glycerin triacrylate, pentaerythritol tetraacrylate, di(trimethylolpropane) tetraacrylate, ethoxylated pentaerythritol tetraacrylate, and combinations thereof (see [0065]). Therefore, Dai teaches that ethoxylated trimethylolpropane triacrylate is a known equivalent crosslinking agent to trimethylolpropane triacrylate.
In view of Dai’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the electrolyte of Otani to utilize ethoxylated trimethylolpropane triacrylate instead of trimethylolpropane triacrylate as the cross-linking agent because they are known equivalent cross-linking agents in the art and so the substitution of a known cross-linking agent (Otani’s trimethylolpropane
triacrylate) for another equivalent cross-linking agent (Dai’s ethoxylated
trimethylolpropane triacrylate) would have been obvious with predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otani as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anandan et al. (US 2017/0263975, hereinafter “Anandan”).
Regarding claim 10, Otani is silent to wherein the electrolyte further comprises an active oxide-based ceramic.
Anandan teaches that a combination of solid and liquid electrolyte may decrease the flammability of the electrolyte. In some situations, this could improve the safety margin of a Li-ion battery. The electrolyte 18 may include a suspension of solid electrolyte particles 24 in a liquid electrolyte 22. The solid electrolyte
particles 24 may be formed of any suitable solid electrolyte material (e.g., as solid material that allows the movement of ions via hopping/jumping through a crystal structure). Non-limiting examples of solid electrolyte materials that may be included in the solid electrolyte particles 24 may include crystalline electrolytes such as lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide (LLZO), lithium lanthanum titanates (LLTO), NASICON type electrolytes (LATP), LISICON type electrolytes (Li14ZnGe4O16), or thio-LISICON (Li10SnP2S12, Li10GeP2S12). Amorphous type electrolytes may include sulfide glass electrolytes (Li2S—SiS2) or lithium phosphorous oxynitride (LIPON) (see [0019]).
In view of Anandan’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the electrolyte of Otani to include wherein the electrolyte further comprises an active oxide-based ceramic because it may help decrease the flammability of the electrolyte, which could improve the safety margin of a Li-ion battery.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Otani and Anandan teaches wherein the active oxide-based ceramic is selected from the group consisting of Li1+xAlxGe2−x(PO4)3 (LAGP), Li7La3Zr2O12 (LLZO) and Li1+xAlxTi2−x(PO4)3 (LATP) (Anandan: see [0019] – teaches LLZO and LATP).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Otani and Anandan is silent to wherein the active oxide-based ceramic is contained in an amount of 15 to 100 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte. However, if the amount of the active oxide-based ceramic material is too low, there would be no appreciable affect of including them. On the other hand, if the amount of the active oxide-based ceramic material included was too great, then it may be result in less liquid electrolyte to react and potentially case safety issues. Therefore, there must be an optimum amount of the active oxide-based ceramic and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to discover through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anandan (US 2017/0263975), in view of Otani (JP 2003251178 A; listed in the IDS filed 3 July 2025; using the attached English machine translation for citations).
Regarding claim 13, Anandan teaches a lithium secondary battery (battery 10, see Fig. 1; [0015]) comprising: a positive electrode (cathode 14, see Fig. 1; [0015]) comprising a lithium nickel cobalt manganese-based positive electrode active material (see [0016]); a negative electrode (anode 12, see Fig. 1; [0015]); and an electrolyte between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (equated to electrolyte disposed within the separator 16, which is between anode 12 and cathode 14, see Fig. 1; [0015]).
Anandan is silent to the electrolyte of claim 1 between the positive electrode and the negative electrode.
Otani teaches the electrolyte of claim 1 (see rejection for claim 1 above).
In view of Otani’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the battery of Anandan to include the electrolyte of claim 1 because the substitution of a known element (the electrolyte of Anandan) for another known element (the electrolyte of Otani) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed with predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Anandan and Otani teaches wherein the electrolyte is attached in the form of a thin film to one side of the positive electrode or the negative electrode, or is independently disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (Anandan: equated to electrolyte disposed within the separator 16, which is between anode 12 and cathode 14, see Fig. 1; [0015]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Anandan and Otani teaches wherein the lithium secondary battery further comprises a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (Anandan: separator 16 disposed between the cathode 14 and the anode 12, see Fig. 1; [0015]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Anandan and Otani teaches wherein the lithium secondary battery is a semi-solid battery comprising a liquid electrolyte and a solid electrolyte (Anandan: see [0019]-[0028]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 4: The prior art, either taken alone or in combination, fails to teach:
wherein the hydrocarbon-based polymer compound containing the cationic functional group comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of polydiallyldimethylammonium ((C8H16N+)n, 1≤n≤10,000), polymethacryloxyethyltrimethylammonium ((C9H18NO2+)n, 1≤n≤10,000), polyallylamine ([CH2CH(CH2NH2)]n, 1≤n≤10,000) and polysodium 4-styrenesulfonate ((C8H7NaO3S)n, 1≤n≤10,000).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458 . 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.
/S.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 24 September 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
