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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/25/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2 & 16-18 are amended. Claims 19-20 are newly added. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 1-16 & 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwashima (US 2023/0216022 A1) in view of Ryu (US 2025/0070414 A1).
Regarding claims 1-16 & 18-20, Iwashima teaches an electrical apparatus such as an electric vehicle comprising a battery comprising a battery cell comprising a negative electrode plate and an electrolyte, wherein the electrolyte comprises a solid electrolyte or a liquid electrolyte and the ratio of a difference between the thickness of the negative electrode plate that is fully charged and a thickness of the negative electrode plate that is uncharged to the thickness of the negative electrode plate that is uncharged, defined by x, is from 20% and 80% (Table 1: Examples 1-2 & 7-8) or less than 20% (Table 1: Examples 4-6) (Table 1; [0177]-[0180], [0188], [0192]-[0197], [0200] & [0221]) but is silent as to the electrolyte comprising a solid electrolyte and a liquid electrolyte. Ryu teaches a battery comprising an electrolyte comprising a gel electrolyte (i.e corresponding to the claimed solid electrolyte) and a liquid electrolyte at a volume ratio of 25:100, wherein the solid electrolyte is a heat-curable electrolyte which is cured at 30°C-100°C (with a specific embodiment using 60°C) for 5 hours to 24 hours (with a specific embodiment using 5 hours) and the liquid electrolyte comprises a lithium salt such as LiPF6 and an organic solvent ([0091]-[0113], [0167] & [0192]). Ryu further teaches forming the solid electrolyte by injecting a raw material comprising 5 wt% to 7 wt% of a polymerizable monomer (with a specific embodiment using 5 wt%) such as trimethylolpropane triacrylate (i.e reading on an ester monomer having an unsaturated double bond); 0.1 wt% to 10 wt% of an initiator such as azobisisobutyronitrile; and the liquid electrolyte (with a specific embodiment using 94 wt%) into a case comprising an electrode assembly ([0097], [0113], [0190] & [0192]); and further injecting the liquid electrolyte into the case and sealing the case ([0189] & [0192]). Assuming an arbitrary 25 L of the solid electrolyte and 100 L of the liquid electrolyte (based on the cited volume ratio of 25:100 [0192]) and using the known densities and/or molar mass of the various components of the solid electrolyte (i.e trimethylolpropane triacrylate (1,100 g/L), EC (1,321 g/L), EMC (1,006 g/L) and LiPF6 (151.9 g/mol)) and the liquid electrolyte (i.e EC (1,321 g/L), EMC (1,006 g/L) and LiPF6 (151.9 g/mol)), the masses of the solid electrolyte and the liquid electrolyte are respectively 34.6 kg and 121.4 kg such that y is about 21%. It is noted that while the content of the gel electrolyte (corresponding the claimed solid electrolyte) defined for y is calculated to be 21%, the real value of y would be expected to be less than 10.5% since the gel electrolyte is mostly a liquid material by weight ratio and may partially include a solid material ([0078]). Accordingly, the content of the solid electrolyte would be expected to be less than 10.5% when the gel electrolyte mostly includes the liquid portion with the solid only forming a partial portion of the gel electrolyte. It would have been obvious to use an electrolyte comprising a solid electrolyte and a liquid electrolyte, as described in Ryu above, in view of producing a battery cell in which battery durability and battery lifetime are improved by disposing a gel electrolyte with low fluidity around an electrode tab to prevent disconnection due to movement and deformation of the electrode tab and by disposing a liquid electrolyte with high wettability around an electrode assembly except for a periphery of the electrode tab to increase wettability of an electrolyte solution with respect to the electrode assembly as taught by Ryu ([0013]).
Claim 1 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2025/0038181 A1) in view of Dong (CN 114497723 A).
Regarding claims 1 & 17, Lee teaches a battery cell comprising a negative electrode plate and a liquid electrolyte, wherein a ratio of a difference between the thickness of the negative electrode plate that is fully charged and a thickness of the negative electrode plate that is uncharged to the thickness of the negative electrode plate that is uncharged, defined by x, is from 68% and 80% (Table 2: Examples 2 & 5; [0235]) but is silent as to the electrolyte comprising a solid electrolyte and a liquid electrolyte. Dong teaches a battery comprising an electrolyte comprising a solid electrolyte and a liquid electrolyte, wherein the liquid electrolyte accounts for 5-50 wt% of an initial electrolyte injection amount which is cured to form the solid electrolyte and remaining uncured liquid electrolyte. Accordingly, a ratio of a mass of the solid electrolyte in the electrolyte to a mass of the electrolyte, defined by y, is 50 wt% to 95 wt% (Page 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use an electrolyte comprising a solid electrolyte and a liquid electrolyte with a volume ratio as described above, because the effect of the solidified electrolyte on the deterioration of electrical properties is significantly reduced, and the electrical properties are significantly better than convention electrolyte using fully cured batteries as taught by Dong (Pages 3-4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The amendment to claim 1 has prompted a new ground of rejection of rejection in view of the newly cited Ryu and Lee references. As presently claimed, the subject matter of claims 1-16 & 18-20 is found to be obvious over the combined teachings of Iwashima and Ryu and the subject matter of claims 1 & 17 is found to be obvious over Lee and Dong. Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 1-20 stand rejected.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm (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, BARBARA GILLIAM can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights