Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/842,729

METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING POLYMER SOLID ELECTROLYTE

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Aug 29, 2024
Examiner
MURATA, AUSTIN
Art Unit
1712
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Lg Energy Solution, LTD.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
65%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
436 granted / 725 resolved
-4.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +5% lift
Without
With
+5.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
762
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
57.9%
+17.9% vs TC avg
§102
12.7%
-27.3% vs TC avg
§112
24.9%
-15.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 725 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 § 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. Claim 11 is 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 11 requires “repeating” steps (4) and (5). However, the input material for step (4) is “a coating film” when the result from step (5) is “a polymer solid electrolyte layer”. Step (4) cannot be performed after step (5) because the “a coating film” no longer exists for antecedent basis. The claim needs to be amended to more carefully preserver antecedent basis for repeated steps. The examiner notes that the “repeating” limitation could be interpreted to avoid a 112 issue if steps (4) and (5) were “repeated” when a new roll is loaded into the unwinder (when repeating all steps 1-6). However, this does not appear to be applicant’s intent (supporting the indefinite rejection) and there is an opportunity to correct the language. 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) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ABOUALI et al. (US 2019/0190065). Claim 17 is a product by process claim for the product created by the method according to claim 1. However, there is no structure necessitated by claim 1 other than the composition of a crosslinking polymer and lithium salt. Applicant’s specification page 16 notes that some of the features of the solid electrolyte are caused by forming a polymer-poor and polymer-rich phases. However, the method does not require allowing any phase separation to occur prior to freezing. For example, if the freezing were performed by flash freezing, no phase separation would occur and the structure of the solid electrolyte would be unchanged by the subsequent thawing. Accordingly, there is no particular structure necessitated by the method claims as written. In addition, the examiner notes that a feature of the invention is the crosslinking of an amorphous polymer chain as distinguished “crystallinity” as defined by applicant. Again, the method does not necessitate a structure in which the crosslinked amorphous polymer chain is achieved or maintained. Lastly the examiner notes that the product by process is depending from claim 1 which does not include specifying a solvent. The hydrogen bonding (electronegativity) of water promotes the phase separation. However, the use of less electronegative solvent and their respective frozen structures do not necessitate phase separation at all. Therefore the scope of a battery containing the product by process for a solid electrolyte only necessitates the composition without any structural requirements. The compositional limitations of claim 1 include a cross-linkable or crosslinked polymer solid electrolyte with lithium salt. With the product by process interpretation above, the product by process claim only limits the composition of the solid electrolyte. ABOUALI generally teaches a solution for a solid electrolyte that includes a lithium salt and ion conductive polymer with crosslinker [0015], [0018] and [0031]. The solid electrolyte is incorporated into an all solid battery because the cathode (e.g. LiCoO2) and anode (silicon/graphite) are both solid [0016] and [0027] to form an all solid state cell. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-10 and 12-16 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The examiner was unable to find prior art teaching the steps of freezing and thawing of a coated film of solid electrolyte solution with crosslinkable functional group and lithium salt. Claim 11 would be allowable if corrected to resolve the 112 issues. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5. 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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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. /AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 29, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Apr 02, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601056
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING A THIN-FILM LITHIATED MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595557
METHOD OF FORMING STRUCTURE INCLUDING A DOPED ADHESION FILM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588415
METHODS FOR REDUCING SURFACE DEFECTS IN ACTIVE FILM LAYERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570533
PROCESS FOR PRODUCING SILICON-CONTAINING MATERIALS IN A STIRRED-TANK REACTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565567
Multifunctional Smart Particles
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
65%
With Interview (+5.1%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 725 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month