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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 3/11/2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 13 are amended.
The claim objections of 12/16/2025 are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Claims 1-16 are pending; Claims 12-15 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5, Applicant argues that Son discloses the percent by weight of the liquid electrolyte in the electrolyte and that this would not be considered a solidification ratio. However, Son teaches a gel electrolyte comprising 85% solids (0109 – 85% by weight crosslinked polymer and 15% by weight electrolyte liquid). One of ordinary skill in the art would consider this a solidification ratio.
Examiner notes that both Son and the present invention form the gel electrolyte by mixing a polymer and an electrolyte liquid (instant specification: 0173; Son: 0109). It is unclear how the solidification ratio of the present invention is measured and why it would differ from Son.
On pages 5-7, Applicant argues unexpected results with regards to the solidification ratio on discharge capacity retention rate, cycle performance, and volumetric energy density. Applicant provides Table 1 as evidence. However, the data provided is not commensurate in scope with the claims. Although Examples 1-9 display a significantly higher capacity retention rate than Comparative Example 1 (solidification ratio of 98%), Examples 1-9 only have solidification ratios between 62% and 94%, whereas the claimed range is from 60% to 95%. Additionally, no comparative example is provided where the solidification ratio is below 60%.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (US 20210288349 A1, cited in the 7/28/2025 IDS) in view of Xiao (US 20200274148 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Son teaches a secondary battery comprising a positive electrode plate, a separator, a negative electrode plate, and an electrolyte (Abstract). The separator is disposed between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate (Abstract; 0037; Fig. 1, part 40 – separator). The electrolyte comprises an electrolytic solution and a first gel electrolyte membrane (Abstract) and the first gel electrolyte membrane is disposed between the negative electrode plate and the separator (0037; Fig.1, part 31 – gel polymer electrolyte). The solidification ratio of the electrolyte is 85% (0038 – the electrolyte liquid may be 30% by weight or less based on the total weight of the gel polymer electrolyte; 0109 – an embodiment teaches that the electrolyte comprises 15% by weight liquid electrolyte, meaning that the solidification ratio is 85%) and the thickness of the first gel electrolyte membrane is 5 µm (0110). Son teaches that the negative electrode can comprise lithium metal (0051) but does not disclose the areal capacity of the negative electrode plate.
Xiao teaches that a negative electrode comprising lithium metal (Abstract) can have an areal capacity of 10 mAh/cm2 (Table 1).
Son and Xiao are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries with electrolytes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the negative electrode of Son to have an areal capacity of 10 mAh/cm2 as Xiao teaches it as an appropriate capacity for a negative electrode comprising lithium metal. Doing so would provide nothing more than a negative electrode with an areal capacity suitable for lithium metal.
Thus, the thickness of the first gel electrolyte membrane is 5 µm and an areal capacity of the negative electrode plate is 10 mAh/cm2, meaning than a = 5, b = 10, and a/b = 0.5.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Son teaches the battery of Claim 1. a/b is 0.5 (see rejection of Claim 1 above), which falls within the claimed range of 0.15 to 1.2.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Son teaches the battery of Claim 1. The solidification ratio of the electrolyte is at least 70% (Son: 0038 – the electrolyte liquid may be 30% by weight or less based on the total weight of the gel polymer electrolyte). Son teaches an embodiment where the solidification ratio is 85% (Son: 0109 – the electrolyte comprises 15% by weight liquid electrolyte, meaning that the solidification ratio is 85%). This falls within the claimed range of 70% to 90%.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Son teaches the battery of Claim 1. The thickness of the first gel electrolyte membrane is 5 µm (Son: 0110). As such, a = 5 and would fall within the claimed range of 1 to 10.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Son teaches the battery of Claim 1. The areal capacity of the negative electrode plate is 10 mAh/cm2 (Xiao: Table 1). As such, b = 10 and would fall within the claimed range of 3 to 10.
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, modified Son teaches the battery of Claim 1. Modified Son teaches that the active material of the negative electrode is lithium metal rather than a silicon-based material (0106).
Son teaches that silicon is a known negative electrode active material with a high capacity property (4200 mAh/g) (0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the negative electrode active material of modified Son to be silicon in order to provide higher energy density. As the active material is silicon, the mass ratio of the silicon-based material in the active material would be 100% (Claim 11).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Son teaches the battery of Claim 1 and that secondary batteries can be used in devices such as mobile phones, wireless electronic devices, and electric vehicles (electric devices) (Son: 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the battery of modified Son in an electric device as Son teaches it as a known application for a secondary battery.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son and Xiao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peng (US 20170288266 A1, cited in the 11/14/2025 IDS).
Regarding Claims 6, modified Son teaches the battery of Claim 1. Modified Son teaches that the gel polymer electrolyte can be between the positive electrode and the separator or between the negative electrode and the separator (100) but does not teach a second gel electrolyte membrane between the positive electrode and the separator.
Peng teaches that a gel electrolyte membrane can be located on a cathode and can comprise the adhesion of a solid electrolyte and the ion conductivity of a liquid electrolyte (Abstract).
Peng is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries with electrolytes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the liquid electrolyte of modified Son to be a gel electrolyte membrane in order to provide the adhesion of a solid electrolyte while maintaining the ion conductivity of a liquid electrolyte.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son, Xiao, and Peng as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Lee (US 20220123361 A1).
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, modified Son teaches the battery of Claim 6. Modified Son does not disclose the thickness of the second gel electrolyte membrane.
Lee teaches that a gel polymer electrolyte layer can have a thickness between 0.1 µm and 500 µm in order to promote ease in the manufacturing process while providing improved performance (0214). This range overlaps the claimed range of 0.1 to 2 µm.
Lee is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries with electrolytes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thickness of the second gel electrolyte membrane of modified Son to be within the range taught by Lee in order to promote ease in the manufacturing process while providing improved performance.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed thickness ranges as selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05). This would result in the thickness of the second gel electrolyte membrane being between 0.1 and 2 µm (Claim 8) and being smaller than the thickness of the first gel electrolyte membrane (Claim 7).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son, Xiao, and Peng as applied to claim 6 above, and as evidenced by Yang (US 20180354976 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Son teaches the battery of Claim 6 (and therefore Claim 1). Modified Son does not disclose if the gel electrolyte is filled in internal pores of the positive electrode plate and/or the negative electrode plate.
However, modified Son teaches that the positive electrode plate comprises active material particles and a PVDF binder (Son: 0105). Yang teaches that a positive electrode can comprise active material particles held together by a binder such as PVDF, and gel electrolytes filling spaces between the positive electrode active materials (Yang: 0036). Therefore, as the battery of modified Son comprises a gel electrolyte adjacent to the positive electrode plate (see rejection of Claim 6 above) and a positive electrode plate comprising active material particles and a PVDF binder, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the gel electrolyte would fill spaces (internal pores) in the positive electrode plate.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIHENG LU whose telephone number is (703)756-1077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5 ET.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/ZIHENG LU/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights