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 Amendments
In response to the amendments received 01/19/2026:
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 5-7, 10, 12, and 14 have been amended. Claims 19-20 are new.
The previous rejection under35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been overcome in light of the amendments.
Claim Interpretation
Independent claim 1 recites a “lyophilic polymer” and new functional limitation “…the lyophilic polymer absorbs at least part of the carbonate solvent diffused into molecular chains of the lyophilic polymer to form a sustained- release electrolyte and lock the absorbed carbonate solvent in the sustained-release electrolyte”.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, a “lyophilic polymer” is interpreted as a polymer comprising lyophilic properties, or an affinity for a solvent/liquid (i.e., soluble, absorbent, polymer matrix, forming a dispersion, wetted, contact angle < 90°, ability to gel/GPEs), not limited to a hydrophilic/hygroscopic/lipophilic component of a polymer or solute.
Therefore, conventional binders, membranes, and polymers (i.e., cellulose, binders, polyolefins, PVDF, etc.) meet the claimed lyophilic polymer. For example, any battery cell including a polymer such as PVDF (i.e. in an active material layer), or any polymer electrolyte, such as gel polymer electrolytes, will meet the recited claim limitation. This interpretation is supported by the instant disclosure.
In light of the limitation of “…the lyophilic polymer absorbs at least part of the carbonate solvent diffused into molecular chains of the lyophilic polymer to form a sustained- release electrolyte and lock the absorbed carbonate solvent in the sustained-release electrolyte”, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. MPEP 2112.01
Therefore, when an electrolyte comprises a carbonate solvent, and using the interpretation of the lyophilic polymer, if a binder/electrolyte/etc. is included the above limitations will be met. Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103.
Claims 1-3 recite formulas:
0
≤
y
M
-
M
’
≤
15
%
;
0.01
%
≤
y
M
-
M
’
≤
10
%
;
0
%
≤
y
m
1
-
m
2
≤
10
%
; and
0
≤
y
m
2
≤
5
%
;
where y denotes mass of a free electrolyte solution in the battery cell, with a unit of g; M denotes mass of the battery cell before the battery cell is dried, with a unit of g; M’ denotes mass of the battery cell after the battery cell is dried, with a unit of g; m1 denotes mass of the electrode assembly before the electrode assembly is dried, with a unit of g; and m2 denotes mass of the electrode assembly after the electrode assembly is dried, with a unit of g.
The instant disclosure teaches these formulas are a ratio of the amount of the free electrolyte solution to the amount of the electrolyte solution in the battery cell, which can characterize the adsorption capacity of the electrode assembly to the electrolyte solution. The formulas are a measurement of the amount of free electrolyte in the cell, or amount above may characterize amount of electrolyte that is adsorbed, or not free. Minimizing the amount of free electrolyte improves reliability and reduces the risk of short circuiting (P84-101). Therefore, recitations of an amount of free electrolytes, or teachings of minimizing/eliminating the amount of free electrolyte will meet the claimed formulas.
Claim 1 recites “…at least one of the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate comprises a lyophilic polymer…”. Using the broadest reasonable interpretation, an electrode plate comprising a lyophilic layer is interpreted as a lyophilic polymer either in contact with, or integrated into a part of the electrode plate. Therefore, a separator layer having an outer lyophilic polymer layer in contact with the electrode plate will meet the above limitation. Such a lyophilic layer can be interpreted as either part of the separator layer or as part of the electrode plate. This interpretation is supported by the instant disclosure, teaching such embodiments.
Claim 20 recites “…wherein the aldehyde ketone polymer of the lyophilic polymer comprises a condensation product of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and formaldehyde represented by Formula (DI), … in Formula (DI), R41 is a methylene group; and R42 is a hydrogen atom…”. For the purpose of compact prosecution, this will be interpreted as- if Formula DI exists in contact with the polymer the limitations will be met. For example, if Formula DI is a solvent of the electrolyte, the lyophilic polymer that swells with the solvent will comprise Formula DI within its molecular chains (from swelling) and thus the limitations will be met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 10-13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai et al. (US 2019/0044118) in view of Dongyang et al. (CN 211700428U).
Regarding claim 1, Sakurai teaches a battery cell, comprising an electrode assembly and an electrolyte, wherein the electrode assembly comprises a first electrode plate, a second electrode plate, and a separator, polarities of the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate are opposite, the separator is arranged between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate, and at least one of the first electrode plate, the second electrode plate comprises a lyophilic polymer, or polymer that swells and gels to improve safety arranged on and tightly adhered/anchored into the active material layer (see claim interpretation of electrode plate comprising lyophilic polymer), the lyophilic polymer comprises at least one of i.e., a fluorinated polymer (P32.84-89.128.153-160.174), the electrolyte comprising a carbonate solvent (P160), the lyophilic polymer absorbs at least part of the carbonate solvent, or the lyophilic polymer swells with electrolyte solution (P75.84-89 .175).
Sakurai is silent in teaching the battery cell satisfies the following formula:
0
≤
y
M
-
M
’
≤
15
%
; however, Dongyang, in a similar field of endeavor, also teaches including similar lyophilic polymers in an electrode assembly to improve the safety of a battery via adhesion and structural integrity. Free electrolyte in a battery is a well-known problem within the art, and Dongyang teaches limiting the amount of free electrolyte to reduce damage, and improve structural integrity and safety while also including the lyophilic polymers within the active electrode plates (P3.10.18-19.50-52.55.62.92).
Therefore, in the absence of new or unexpected results for which objective evidence commensurate in scope with the claim is offered, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to minimize the amount of free electrolyte in the battery cell of Sakurai, as taught by Dongyang, to prevent short circuiting and improve safety and in the course of routine experimentation, arrive at a value within the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness may be established even though a prior art reference does not disclose any particular range, but teaches that the claimed parameters are known to affect results or properties. (“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable…is ordinarily within the skill of the art.”).
A prima facie case of obviousness may be established even though a prior art reference does not disclose any particular range, but teaches that the claimed parameters are known to affect results or properties. “It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” MPEP 2144
While modified Sakurai in view of Dongyang is silent in explicitly teaching that the absorbed electrolyte/carbonate solvent diffused into molecule chains of the lyophilic polymer to form a sustained- release electrolyte and lock the absorbed carbonate solvent in the sustained-release electrolyte; modified Sakurai teaches the carbonate solvent swelling the lyophilic polymer which swells/shrinks with charge/discharge forming a porous flexible polymer with polymer chain entanglement while Dongyang teaches minimizing the free electrolyte.
The instant disclosure teaches the lyophilic polymer and electrolyte have good affinity forming an elastic porous form that swells forming a porous elastic polymer with polymer chain entanglement thus equating to a sustained-release electrolyte.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that the absorbed electrolyte/carbonate solvent diffused into molecule chains of the lyophilic polymer of modified Sakurai in view of Dongyang form a sustained- release electrolyte and lock the absorbed carbonate solvent in the sustained-release electrolyte.
A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. The claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Additionally, the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 2, modified Sakurai in view of Dongyang teaches providing enough electrolyte for long term cycling while minimizing the amount of free electrolyte in the cell for safety (P50.52.92).
While Dongyang of modified Sakurai is silent in explicitly teaching
0.01
%
≤
y
M
-
M
’
≤
10
%
, Dongyang teaches limiting the amount of free electrolyte to reduce damage, and improve structural integrity and safety while also including the lyophilic polymers within the active electrode plates (P3.10.18-19.50-52.55.62.92).
Therefore, in the absence of new or unexpected results for which objective evidence commensurate in scope with the claim is offered, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to minimize the amount of free electrolyte in the battery cell of Sakurai, as taught by Dongyang, and arrive at the claimed range of
0.01
%
≤
y
M
-
M
’
≤
10
%
, to prevent short circuiting and improve safety and in the course of routine experimentation, arrive at a value within the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness may be established even though a prior art reference does not disclose any particular range, but teaches that the claimed parameters are known to affect results or properties. (“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable…is ordinarily within the skill of the art.”).
A prima facie case of obviousness may be established even though a prior art reference does not disclose any particular range, but teaches that the claimed parameters are known to affect results or properties. “It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” MPEP 2144
Regarding claim 3, modified Sakurai in view of Dongyang teaches providing enough electrolyte for long term cycling while minimizing the amount of free electrolyte in the cell for safety (P50.52.92).
While Dongyang of modified Sakurai is silent in explicitly teaching
0
%
≤
y
m
1
-
m
2
≤
10
%
; and/or
0
≤
y
m
2
≤
5
%
; Dongyang teaches limiting the amount of free electrolyte to reduce damage, and improve structural integrity and safety while also including the lyophilic polymers within the active electrode plates (P3.10.18-19.50-52.55.62.92).
Therefore, in the absence of new or unexpected results for which objective evidence commensurate in scope with the claim is offered, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to minimize the amount of free electrolyte in the battery cell of Sakurai, as taught by Dongyang, and arrive at the claimed range of
0
%
≤
y
m
1
-
m
2
≤
10
%
; and/or
0
≤
y
m
2
≤
5
%
to prevent short circuiting and improve safety and in the course of routine experimentation, arrive at a value within the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness may be established even though a prior art reference does not disclose any particular range, but teaches that the claimed parameters are known to affect results or properties. (“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable…is ordinarily within the skill of the art.”).
A prima facie case of obviousness may be established even though a prior art reference does not disclose any particular range, but teaches that the claimed parameters are known to affect results or properties. “It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” MPEP 2144
Regarding claim 4, modified Sakurai in view of Dongyang teaches providing enough electrolyte for long term cycling while minimizing the amount of free electrolyte in the cell for safety to an amount per unit capacity of 50≤b≤300 (P50-52), falling within the claimed range of 0≤b≤1400. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05- I
Regarding claim 5, modified Sakurai in view of Dongyang teaches the first electrode plate comprises a current collector and an active material layer disposed on at least one surface of the current collector (Sakurai; P155-162), and the active material layer comprises the lyophilic polymer and active material particles; the lyophilic polymer is distributed on surfaces of the active material particles, as an adhesive layer (Sakurai; P51.59.74) and mixed with the active material particles (Dongyang; P17-19.22-24), wherein a mass ratio of the lyophilic polymer is 0.5%-2%, based on a total weight of the active material layer (Dongyang; P45.54). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05-I
The instant disclosure teaches mixing the active material with the lyophilic polymer to obtain pores between every two adjacent active material particles where the lyophilic polymer is distributed in the pores between the active material particles (based on examples), therefore, modified Sakurai teaching mixing the lyophilic polymer/adhesive with the active material in the ratio as taught by Dongyang meets this limitation as the ordinary artisan posses knowledge and skill rendering them capable of combining such references. Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, modified Sakurai teaches the separator comprises a substrate and a coating, or adhesive layer, disposed on at least one surface of the substrate; wherein the lyophilic polymer is at least distributed in the coating (P25.40.51.59).
Regarding claim 10, modified Sakurai teaches the lyophilic polymer may further comprise an ether polymer provided with flexibility, having good adhesion strength (P40-44.92).
While modified Sakurai is silent in teaching wherein the ether polymer is made into a sheet-like structural body; the sheet-like structural body is subjected to a dynamic frequency scanning test at (Tm2+20)°C to obtain an elastic modulus G'-loss modulus G” curve, and a slope of the elastic modulus G'-loss modulus G” curve is K1, wherein 1<K1<∞, and Tm2°C represents a melting temperature of the ether polymer, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. [I]t is elementary that the mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, inherently possessed by things in the prior art, does not cause a claim drawn to those things to distinguish over the prior art. MPEP § 2112.01, I
Should the polymer, that is the same as that claimed comprising an ether within the structure, of modified Sakurai be repurposed for testing, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that some slope found would fall within the claimed range of 1 to infinity.
Furthermore, the claimed elastic modulus curve obtained does not establish a new or unobvious functional relationship between the lyophilic polymer and the battery cell, as the obtained curve is not functionally related to the battery cell or the polymer function within the cell. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know whether the polymer, turned into a sheet for testing, is used within the cell, or if another variation of it is used (does infringement occur when the test curve is created or otherwise).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a slope of an elastic modulus curve of the ether comprising polymer of modified Sakurai would be positive. A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. MPEP 2144 Additionally, the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed product. The Courts have held that product claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. MPEP2114&2173.05(g)
Regarding claim 11, modified Sakurai teaches the ether polymer comprises a structural unit represented by Formula (BI) such as polyethers of polypropylene or polyethylene glycol (P43.92).
Regarding claim 12, modified Sakurai teaches the lyophilic polymer may comprise an ester polymers, such as polymethyl methacrylate (P64-69).
While modified Sakurai is silent in teaching the ester polymer is made into a sheet structure; the sheet structure is subjected to a dynamic frequency scanning test at (Tm3+20)°C to obtain an elastic modulus G'-loss modulus G” curve, and a slope of the elastic modulus G'-loss modulus G” curve is K2, wherein 1<K2<∞, and Tm3°C represents a melting temperature of the ester polymer, , when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. [I]t is elementary that the mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, inherently possessed by things in the prior art, does not cause a claim drawn to those things to distinguish over the prior art. MPEP § 2112.01, I
Should the polymer, that is the same as that claimed comprising an ester within the structure, of modified Sakurai be repurposed for testing, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that some slope found would fall within the claimed range of 1 to infinity.
Furthermore, the claimed elastic modulus curve obtained does not establish a new or unobvious functional relationship between the lyophilic polymer and the battery cell, as the obtained curve is not functionally related to the battery cell or the polymer function within the cell. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know whether the polymer, turned into a sheet for testing, is used within the cell, or if another variation of it is used (does infringement occur when the test curve is created or otherwise).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a slope of an elastic modulus curve of the ester comprising polymer of modified Sakurai would be positive. A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. MPEP 2144 Additionally, the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed product. The Courts have held that product claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. MPEP2114&2173.05(g)
Regarding claim 13, modified Sakurai teaches wherein the ester polymer comprises a structural unit represented by Formula (CI), or methyl methacrylate (P69).
Regarding claim 16, modified Sakurai teaches a molecular weight of the lyophilic polymer is 10,000 to 500,000 g/mol to increase adhesive strength with favorable fluidity and dynamic characteristics (P41.77.86.243), overlapping the claimed range of 1.2×105 g/mol to 1×106 g/mol. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05- I
Regarding claim 17, modified Sakurai teaches a battery, comprising the battery cell according to claim 1 (P19.21.152-163).
Regarding claim 18, modified Sakurai teaches an electrical apparatus, comprising the battery, or that batteries such as the one taught are used for electrical apparatuses such as electronic devices (P3).
Regarding claim 19, modified Sakurai teaches the fluorinated polymer of the lyophilic polymer is a copolymer that may be made of (VDF) with (HFP) and/or (TFE) (P82 – wherein VDF can be copolymerized with two of a list including VDF and HFP).
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. Additionally, it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.”
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Sakurai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (WO 2015026182 A1)
Regarding claim 7, modified Sakurai teaches the lyophilic polymer may comprise the fluorinated polymer (P51-59.81-89.115-116).
Lee, in a similar field of endeavor, also teaches a lyophilic polymer as part of a separator, coating layer for the same intended benefits as modified Sakurai (P5-9.22).
Lee teaches including a fluorinated polymer as a lyophilic polymer (Sakurai, Dongyang, and Lane all teaching i.e., PVDF) having a crystallinity in the range of 10 to 30%, overlapping the claimed range of 0<Xc1≤30%; and a melting temperature of the fluorinated polymer is between about 119.5° C to 141.7° C, overlapping the claimed range of 0<Tm1≤140°C, to improve performance, safety, heat resistance and electrolyte impregnation (P8.24.59; Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the fluorinated polymer as a lyophilic polymer of modified Sakurai, formed with a crystallinity in the range of 10 to 30% and a melting temperature between 119.5° C to 141.7° C to improve performance and electrolyte impregnation, as taught by Lee. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05- I
Regarding claim 8, modified Sakurai teaches a glass transition temperature of the fluorinated polymer is Tg1, with a unit of °C, such as examples 7-14 with a range from -25oC to 61oC (Table 1-3), overlapping the claimed range of -150≤Tg1≤60 for safety and performance.
Regarding claim 9, modified Sakurai teaches the fluorinated polymer comprises at least one of a structural unit represented by Formula (AI), or PVDF (P81-89).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Sakurai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hiwara et al. (US 2008/0090145).
Regarding claim 14, modified Sakurai is silent in teaching the lyophilic polymer may comprise an aldehyde ketone; however, Hiwara, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a lyophilic comprising an aldehyde ketone polymer to increase charging/discharging capacity, adhesion between components, and increased freedom in design in a battery cell (P6-43.86.146-148).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include the lyophilic aldehyde ketone polymer of Hirawa in the separator of modified Sakurai, to increase capacity.
While modified Sakurai is silent in teaching the aldehyde polymer is made into a sheet structure; the sheet structure is subjected to a dynamic frequency scanning test at (Tm3+20)°C to obtain an elastic modulus G'-loss modulus G” curve, and a slope of the elastic modulus G'-loss modulus G” curve is K2, wherein 1<K2<∞, and Tm3°C represents a melting temperature of the ester polymer, , when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. [I]t is elementary that the mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, inherently possessed by things in the prior art, does not cause a claim drawn to those things to distinguish over the prior art. MPEP § 2112.01, I
Should the polymer, that is the same as that claimed comprising an ester within the structure, of modified Sakurai be repurposed for testing, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that some slope found would fall within the claimed range of 1 to infinity.
Furthermore, the claimed elastic modulus curve obtained does not establish a new or unobvious functional relationship between the lyophilic polymer and the battery cell, as the obtained curve is not functionally related to the battery cell or the polymer function within the cell. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know whether the polymer, turned into a sheet for testing, is used within the cell, or if another variation of it is used (does infringement occur when the test curve is created or otherwise).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a slope of an elastic modulus curve of the ester comprising polymer of modified Sakurai would be positive. A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. MPEP 2144 Additionally, the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed product. The Courts have held that product claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. MPEP2114&2173.05(g)
Regarding claim 15, modified Sakurai in view of Hirawa teaches the aldehyde ketone polymer comprises a structural unit represented by Formula (DI), or polyvinyl butyral (P30-37).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Sakurai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of in view of Tsujii et al. (US 20120231346).
Regarding claim 20, modified Sakurai is silent in teaching the lyophilic polymer comprising Formula (DI), but teaches a solvent can include combinations of carbonates, esters, etc. while other resins and polymers may be incorporated (P76.92.160)
Noguchi also teaches using a polymer to form a protective layer forming solution. The electrolyte may also use a solvent, incorporated in the polymer chain to plasticize the protective layer, such as γ-butyrolactone, carbonates, and/or cyclic ethers, such as Formula DI, or 2-methyl-1,3-dioxane (P122-123).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use a solvent, such as that of Formula DI, as taught by Tsujii as the solvent that is incorporated into the layer of modified Sakurai because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results are reasonably predictable. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. MPEP 2143
Examiner notes claim interpretation with respect to the condensation reaction.
Response to Arguments
In response to arguments filed 01/19/2026:
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
436
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
These arguments are unpersuasive. First, examiner notes the interpretation of the at least one of the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate comprising a lyophilic polymer. An electrode plate comprising a lyophilic layer is interpreted as a lyophilic polymer either in contact with, or integrated into a part of the electrode plate. Therefore, a separator layer having an outer lyophilic polymer layer in contact with the electrode plate will meet the above limitation. Such a lyophilic layer can be interpreted as either part of the separator layer or as part of the electrode plate. This interpretation is supported by the instant disclosure, teaching such embodiments (i.e., P121 of instant disclosure).
Second, where Applicant argues that while Sakurai teaches the layer swelling from electrolyte for improved adhesion, but not for minimizing free electrolyte, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Examiner also notes that the disclosure teaches the same improved adhesion from the swelling (i.e. P118 of PGPUB US20250385267).
Therefore, while Sakurai does not explicitly teach that the absorbed electrolyte forms a sustained-release electrolyte, Sakurai teaches the electrolyte comprising a carbonate solvent, and the same lyophilic polymer as the claim, wherein the lyophilic polymer with the same properties (i.e. wherein the polymer such as PVdF can be dissolved by solvent and uniformly compatibilized at molecular level for higher strength while optimized on glass transition temperature and molecular weight) (P79-80.84-86.170).
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
192
714
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Dongyang teaches using i.e, PVdF, which is a lyophilic polymer. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. "There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102."
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities.
The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. MPEP 2112
A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. The claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Additionally, the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5 pm.
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 A. 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752