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
This is a final Office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 12/28/2025. Claims 1 and 21 are amended. Claims 2 – 4 and 14 – 18 are canceled. Claims 10 – 13 remain withdrawn. Claims 1, 5 – 9, and 19 – 27 are pending in the current Office action.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections set forth in the previous Office action are withdrawn.
A new grounds of rejection, necessitated by applicant’s amendment is presented below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The recitation “when a non-aqueous organic solvent consists of a glyme-based solvent” should be “when the non-aqueous organic solvent consists of the glyme-based solvent” for consistency, and the recitation “when the non-aqueous organic solvent consisting of the glyme-based solvent and the carbonate-based solvent” is awkwardly worded/unclear and it appears “consisting” should be “consists”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: The inclusion of the limitation “wherein the carbonate-based organic solvent includes a cyclic carbonate-based organic solvent and a linear carbonate-based organic solvent in a volume ratio of 0:10 to 1:9” is unclear/inconsistent with the recitation of previous limitation.
For consistency and for the purpose of this Office action, the examiner is interpreting the limitation to recite --and wherein when the non-aqueous organic solvent consists of the glyme-based solvent and the carbonate-based solvent, the carbonate-based organic solvent includes a cyclic carbonate-based organic solvent and a linear carbonate-based organic solvent in a volume ratio of 0:10 to 1:9--, which appears to be supported by [0072] and [0075 – 0079] of the instant specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 19 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.
Regarding Claim 19, the recitation “a cyclic-based carbonate” and “a linear-based carbonate” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the cyclic-based and linear-based carbonates are the same carbonates as claimed in claim 1 or are different carbonates.
For the purpose of this Office action, the examiner is interpreting the carbonates of claim 19 to be the same as the carbonates of claim 1, which appears to be supported by [0075 – 0079] of the instant specification.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Specifically claim 19 recites “wherein the carbonate-based organic solvent comprises a cyclic carbonate-based organic solvent, a linear carbonate-based organic solvent, or a mixed organic solvent thereof”. Claim 19 depends from claim 1 which recites “when the non-aqueous organic solvent consisting of the glyme-based solvent and the carbonate-based solvent, and a weight ratio of the glyme-based solvent to the carbonate-based solvent is in the range of 3:7 to 9:1, the carbonate-based organic solvent includes a cyclic carbonate-based organic solvent and a linear carbonate-based organic solvent in a volume rate of 0:10 to 1:9”. Therefore, claim 19 recites carbonate-based solvent compositions outside the scope of claim 1 {i.e. claim 1 requires, when the glyme-based solvent consists of a glyme-based solvent and carbonate-based solvent, the solvent to include cyclic carbonate-based organic solvent and a linear carbonate-based solvent or just linear carbonate-based solvent based on the volume ratio}. For the sake of compact prosecution, as long the limitations of claim 1 are met, it will be interpreted that the limitation of claim 19 is also met.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 5 – 8, and 19 – 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (WO2016053064A1, US10243239B1 used as English translation, cited in prior Office action mailed 09/06/2025) in view of Nakamoto (US PG Pub. 2016/0204471 A1) and Iwaya (US PG Pub. 2012/0107701 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 20, Ahn discloses Ahn discloses a composition for a gel polymer electrolyte (Col. 2 lines 56 – 57), the composition comprising: a lithium salt (Col. 2 lines 56 – 65; Col. 29 lines 15 – 22) , a non-aqueous organic solvent (electrolyte solution solvent; Col. 2 lines 56 – 65; Col. 29 lines 26 – 32) and a polymerization initiator (Col. 2 lines 56 – 65; Col. 31 lines 5 – 16).
Ahn further discloses that the gel electrolyte composition also includes an oligomer (Col. 2 lines 56 – 65).
PNG
media_image1.png
731
1153
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated image of Formula 7b from Ahn
Ahn specifically provides Formulas 7a – to 7d as examples of the oligomer included in the gel electrolyte (Col. 24 lines 21 – 24). Formula 7b is used to prepare the electrolyte in Example 2 of Ahn (Col. 35 lines 13 – 23). Formula 7b possesses a structure that is within the claim limitation of an oligomer represented by Formula 1, wherein, in Formula 1, R1 is an alkylene group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms or -R1'-O-, wherein R,' is an alkylene group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms (-R’-O- structure; Refer to group labeled R1 in annotated Formula 7b above), R2 is an alkylene group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms or -O-R2'-, wherein R2' is an alkylene group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms (-O-R’- structure; Refer to R2 in annotated Formula 7b above), R4, R5, R6, and R7 are each independently hydrogen or an alkyl group having 1 to 3 carbon atoms (-CH3; Refer to R4 – 7 in annotated Formula 7b above), R and R3 are each independently an aliphatic hydrocarbon group or an aromatic hydrocarbon group (aliphatic hydrocarbon structures; Refer to R and R3 in annotated Formula 7b above), each of R8 and R9 is an alkylene group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms (alkylene group with 1 carbon atom; Refer to R8 and R9 in annotated Formula 7b above), c and c1 are each independently 3 (Refer to the number of structures labeled c and c1 in annotated Formula 7b above) which is within the claimed range of an integer of 1 to 3, and d and d1 are each independently 2 (Refer to the number of structures labeled d and d1 in annotated Formula 7b above) which is within the claimed range of an integer of 0 to 2.
Formula 1 of the instant claim shows that groups Ra – Rd are dependent on the number of c, c1, d, and d1 groups. Based on the applicant’s Formula 1, when c and c1 = 3 and d and d1 = 2, groups Ra – Rd are not included in the oligomer of the electrolyte. Therefore, Formula 7b’s structure meets the claim limitation of wherein Ra, Rb, Rc, and Rd are each independently hydrogen or an alkyl group having 1 to 3 carbon atoms, because Ahn’s Formula 7b is Formula 1 when Ra-Rd each respectively have a subscript of zero, and; thus, is necessarily within the claimed composition.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed Invention, to have selected k and r values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success in forming an oligomer with the structure shown in Formula 7b that is suitable for use in a gel electrolyte for a battery and is capable of providing the benefits of improved mechanical properties, separator affinity, and ionic conductivity (Col. 27 lines 14 – 35; Col. 27 lines 42 – 50), because such values would be within the compositional ranges taught Ahn to provide such benefits.
In example 2, Ahn discloses using 5 wt% of the oligomer of Formula 7b to prepare the gel polymer electrolyte (Col. 35 lines 4 – 9), which is within the claimed wt% range of 2 wt% to 80 wt% based on a total weight of the composition for a gel polymer electrolyte.
In Example 2, Ahn prepares their gel electrolyte by using a combination of solvents including ethylene carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, and dimethyl carbonate with LiPF6 as the lithium salt (Col. 35 lines 13 – 17). Ahn generally teaches the use of non-aqueous solvents typically used in electrolyte solutions for a lithium secondary battery such as cyclic/linear carbonates, ethers, esters, amides, and nitriles (Col. 29 lines 26 – 32). Ahn further teaches that the solvents may be used alone or in mixtures (Col. 29 lines 26 – 32).
Ahn does not explicitly disclose an embodiment where the nonaqueous organic solvent consisting of a glyme-based solvent or a glyme-based solvent and a carbonate-based organic solvent.
Nakamoto teaches an electrolyte solution for a lithium battery comprising an electrolyte layer containing the electrolyte solution formed between a cathode having an oxide active material and an anode having a metal active material that may include an elemental metal, an alloy, and a metal oxide ([0044];[0047 – 0049];[0051 – 0052]). The electrolyte solution is taught to include a glyme solvent, Li amide salt and fluoride salt, and Nakamoto further teaches that the solvent of the electrolyte solution can only be the glyme or a mixture of the glume and other solvent ([0025];[0033 – 0036]). Nakamoto teaches a preference for having the ratio of the glyme relative to the whole solvent be 90 mol% or more, and thus suggests a preference for only using the glyme as the electrolyte solvent ([0036]). Glyme solvents taught by Nakamoto include diethylene glycol diethyl ether (G2), triethylene glycol dimethyl ether (G3), tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether (G4), diethylene glycol dibutyl ether, diethylene glycol methylethyl ether, triethylene glycol methylethyl ether, and triethylene glycol butylmethyl ether ([0032]). The electrolyte composition taught in Nakamoto exhibits an effect capable of suppressing lowering of reactivity of a Li ion and an electrode active material due to a glyme solvent and by extension achieves improved charge and discharge speed for charging and discharging at a higher rate ([0008 – 0009]).
Since Ahn generally teaches the use of non-aqueous solvents typically used in electrolyte solutions for a lithium secondary battery such as cyclic/linear carbonates, ethers, esters, amides, and nitriles alone or in mixtures (Col. 29 lines 26 – 32) and further also generally teaches using salts also taught in Nakamoto (Col. 29 lines 15 – 22), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use as the electrolyte solution of for Ahn’s exemplified gel polymer electrolyte, an electrolyte solution as taught in Nakamoto, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a battery with improved charge and discharge speed (Nakamoto: [0008 – 0009]).
Furthermore, selection of an electrolyte composition within the claimed the scope of “consisting of a glyme-based solvent” would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, because such a selection would be a selection from a finite list of options/obvious variant of solvent compositions taught by Nakamoto {i.e. Nakomoto only teaches/suggests to solvent composition options 1) having the glyme solvent make up all of the solvent or 2) having the glyme solvent make up a portion} and further would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing the claimed charging/discharging speed improvement.
Glyme solvents taught by Nakamoto include diethylene glycol diethyl ether (G2), triethylene glycol dimethyl ether (G3), tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether (G4), diethylene glycol dibutyl ether, diethylene glycol methylethyl ether, triethylene glycol methylethyl ether, and triethylene glycol butylmethyl ether ([0032]). Nakamoto further teaches a preference for using tetraglyme {i.e. tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether} ([0010]).
The polymer electrolyte of modified Ahn, as established above, has an electrolyte solution as taught by Nakamoto, as such modified Ahn suggests an electrolyte solution within the claimed scope of wherein when the non-aqueous organic solvent consists of a glyme-based solvent, the glyme-based solvent is tetraglyme and wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent does not include propylene carbonate.
To further render obvious selection of tetraglyme as the solvent for modified Ahn as established above the following teachings from Iwaya are also relied upon:
Iwaya, also directed toward lithium ion battery electrolyte solutions including a glyme solvent, teaches that, diethylene glycol dimethyl ether (flash point: 50° C.), triethylene glycol dimethyl ether (flash point: 110° C.) or tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether (flash point: 144° C.) {i.e. tetraglyme} are glyme solvents that provide favorable conductivity as well as an excellent balance of both properties of the viscosity and the flash point ([0016];[0042]).
Therefore, since Nakamoto teaches from a finite list of glyme solvents, a preference for using tetraglyme, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to select, as the glyme solvent of modified Ahn, tetraglyme, and thus obtain a non-aqueous organic solvent consisting of tetraglyme and thus within the claimed scope, with a reasonable expectation of success that such a selection would be a suitable solvent for the electrolyte and further provide the benefits of favorable conductivity as well as balance of viscosity and the flash point properties.
By reciting “a non-aqueous organic solvent consisting of: a glyme-based solvent; or a glyme-based solvent and a carbonate-based organic solvent” and further “wherein when the non-aqueous solvent organic solvent consists of a glyme-based solvent, the glyme-based solvent is tetraglyme (TEGDME), when the non-aqueous organic solvent consisting of the glyme-based solvent and the carbonate-based solvent, and a weight ratio of the glyme-based solvent to the carbonate-based solvent is in the range of 3:7 to 9:1, the carbonate-based organic solvent includes a cyclic carbonate-based organic solvent and a linear carbonate-based organic solvent in a volume rate of 0:10 to 1:9” claim 1, as currently written presents “a non-aqueous organic solvent consisting of a glyme-based solvent and a carbonate-based organic solvent” as an alternative to a non-aqueous organic solvent consisting of: a glyme-based solvent” and further does not positively require the limitation “when the non-aqueous organic solvent consisting of the glyme-based solvent and the carbonate-based solvent, and a weight ratio of the glyme-based solvent to the carbonate-based solvent is in the range of 3:7 to 9:1, the carbonate-based organic solvent includes a cyclic carbonate-based organic solvent and a linear carbonate-based organic solvent in a volume rate of 0:10 to 1:9”. Therefore, by including an electrolyte solution that uses tetraglyme alone as the solvent, the gel polymer electrolyte of modified Ahn, as established above reads on the claimed gel polymer electrolyte of claim 1 and further is within the claimed scope of “wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent consists of: the glyme-based solvent; or the glyme-based solvent and ethylene carbonate (Claim 20).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Ahn discloses all limitations as set forth above. Furthermore, in Formula 7b of Ahn, R1 is has a -R’-O- structure where R’ is an alkylene group having 3 carbon atoms (Refer to group labeled R1 in annotated Formula 7b above) which is within the claimed R1 structure of -R1’-O-, wherein R1’ is an alkylene group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms, R2 has a -O-R’- structure where R’ is an alkylene group having 3 carbon atoms (Refer to group labeled R2 in annotated Formula 7b above) which is within the claimed R2 structure of -R2’-O-, wherein R2’ is an alkylene group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms, R4-7 are each -CH3 having 1 carbon atom (Refer to groups labeled R4, R5, R6, and R7 in annotated Formula 7b above) which is within the claimed R4-7 structures of an alkyl group having 1 to 3 carbon atoms, R8 and R9 are each independently alkyl groups having 1 carbon atom (Refer to groups labeled R8 and R9 in annotated Formula 7b above) which is within the claimed R8 and R9 structures of an alkylene group having 1 to 3 carbon atoms.
Formula 1 of the instant claim shows that groups Ra – Rd are dependent on the number of c, c1, d, and d1 groups. Based on the applicant’s Formula 1, when c and c1 = 3 and d and d1 = 2, groups Ra – Rd are not included in the oligomer of the electrolyte. Therefore, Formula 7b’s structure meets the claim limitation of wherein Ra, Rb, Rc, and Rd are each independently hydrogen, because Ahn’s Formula 7b is Formula 1 when Ra-Rd each respectively have a subscript of zero, and; thus, is necessarily within the claimed composition.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Ahn discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Furthermore, in Formula 7b of Ahn, R1 is has a -R’-O- structure where R’ is an alkylene group having 3 carbon atoms (Refer to group labeled R1 in annotated Formula 7b above) which is within the claimed R1 structure of -R1’-O-, wherein R1’ is an alkylene group having 2 to 5 carbon atoms, R2 has a -O-R’- structure where R’ is an alkylene group having 3 carbon atoms (Refer to group labeled R2 in annotated Formula 7b above) which is within the claimed R2 structure of -R2’-O-, wherein R2’ is an alkylene group having 2 to 5 carbon atoms, R4-7 are each -CH3 having 1 carbon atom (Refer to groups labeled R4, R5, R6, and R7 in annotated Formula 7b above) which is within the claimed R4-7 structures of an alkyl group having 1 to 3 carbon atoms, R8 and R9 are each independently alkyl groups having 1 carbon atom (Refer to groups labeled R8 and R9 in annotated Formula 7b above) which is within the claimed R8 and R9 structures of an alkylene group having 1 or 2 carbon atoms.
Formula 1 of the instant claim shows that groups Ra – Rd are dependent on the number of c, c1, d, and d1 groups. Based on the applicant’s Formula 1, when c and c1 = 3 and d and d1 = 2, groups Ra – Rd are not included in the oligomer of the electrolyte. Therefore, Formula 7b’s structure meets the claim limitation of wherein Ra, Rb, Rc, and Rd are each independently hydrogen, because Ahn’s Formula 7b is Formula 1 when Ra-Rd each respectively have a subscript of zero, and; thus, is necessarily within the claimed composition.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Ahn discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Formula 7b of modified Ahn is substantially the same as the claimed Formula 1a except for the following discussion regarding overlapping ranges.
In Formula 7b of Ahn, m, k, and r range from 1 – 30, 1 – 200, and 1 – 400, respectively (Col. 25 lines 59 – 64). By having the value of m range from 1 – 30, Ahn’s y and z values are each independently within the claimed range of an integer of 1 to 100, as m in Formula 7b pertains to the same groups as y and z in the applicant’s formula. The values of k and r in Formula 7b pertain to the same groups as o and x in the applicant’s formula and have disclosed ranges that overlap the claimed ranges of o and x, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness [MPEP 2144.05(I)].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected k and r values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success in forming an oligomer with the structure shown in Formula 7b that is suitable for use in a gel electrolyte for a battery and is capable of providing the benefits of improved mechanical properties, separator affinity, and ionic conductivity (Col. 27 lines 14 – 35; Col. 27 lines 42 – 50), because such values would be within the compositional ranges taught Ahn to provide such benefits.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Ahn discloses all the limitations as set forth above. In example 2, Ahn discloses using 5 wt% of the oligomer of Formula 7b to prepare the gel polymer electrolyte (Col. 35 lines 4 – 9), which is within the claimed wt% range of 3 wt% to 50 wt% based on a total weight of the composition for a gel polymer electrolyte.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Ahn discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Claim 1 recites the limitation “a non-aqueous organic solvent consisting of: a glyme-based solvent; or a glyme-based solvent and a carbonate-based organic solvent”. By reciting the non-aqueous organic solvent consisting of a glyme-based solvent and a carbonate-based organic solvent in the alternative, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 does not positively require the inclusion of a carbonate-based solvent when there is a non-aqueous organic solvent consisting of a glyme-based solvent.
By reciting “wherein the carbonate-based organic solvent comprises a cyclic carbonate-based organic solvent, a linear carbonate-based organic solvent, or a mixed organic solvent thereof”, claim 19 attempts to further limit the alternative limitation of claim 1.
As such, Modified Ahn, by rendering obvious the gel polymer electrolyte having the non-aqueous organic solvent consisting of: a glyme-based solvent, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is also interpreted as reading on the recited limitation of claim 19 (Also see 112(d) rejection section above).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Ahn discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Ahn discloses a composition for a gel polymer electrolyte (Col. 2 lines 56 – 57), the composition consisting of (i) a lithium salt (Col. 2 lines 56 – 65; Col. 29 lines 15 – 22) , (ii) a non-aqueous organic solvent (electrolyte solution solvent; Col. 2 lines 56 – 65; Col. 29 lines 26 – 32) and (iv) a polymerization initiator (Col. 2 lines 56 – 65; Col. 31 lines 5 – 16).
Ahn further discloses that the gel electrolyte composition includes an oligomer (Col. 2 lines 56 – 65).
PNG
media_image1.png
731
1153
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated image of Formula 7b from Ahn
Ahn specifically provides Formulas 7a – to 7d as examples of the oligomer included in the gel electrolyte (Col. 24 lines 21 – 24). Formula 7b is used to prepare the electrolyte in Example 2 of Ahn (Col. 35 lines 13 – 23). Formula 7b possesses a structure that is within the claim limitation of an oligomer represented by Formula 1, wherein, in Formula 1, R1 is an alkylene group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms or -R1'-O-, wherein R,' is an alkylene group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms (-R’-O- structure; Refer to group labeled R1 in annotated Formula 7b above), R2 is an alkylene group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms or -O-R2'-, wherein R2' is an alkylene group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms (-O-R’- structure; Refer to R2 in annotated Formula 7b above), R4, R5, R6, and R7 are each independently hydrogen or an alkyl group having 1 to 3 carbon atoms (-CH3; Refer to R4 – 7 in annotated Formula 7b above), R and R3 are each independently an aliphatic hydrocarbon group or an aromatic hydrocarbon group (aliphatic hydrocarbon structures; Refer to R and R3 in annotated Formula 7b above), each of R8 and R9 is an alkylene group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms (alkylene group with 1 carbon atom; Refer to R8 and R9 in annotated Formula 7b above), c and c1 are each independently 3 (Refer to the number of structures labeled c and c1 in annotated Formula 7b above) which is within the claimed range of an integer of 1 to 3, and d and d1 are each independently 2 (Refer to the number of structures labeled d and d1 in annotated Formula 7b above) which is within the claimed range of an integer of 0 to 2.
Formula 1 of the instant claim shows that groups Ra – Rd are dependent on the number of c, c1, d, and d1 groups. Based on the applicant’s Formula 1, when c and c1 = 3 and d and d1 = 2, groups Ra – Rd are not included in the oligomer of the electrolyte. Therefore, Formula 7b’s structure meets the claim limitation of wherein Ra, Rb, Rc, and Rd are each independently hydrogen or an alkyl group having 1 to 3 carbon atoms, because Ahn’s Formula 7b is Formula 1 when Ra-Rd each respectively have a subscript of zero, and; thus, is necessarily within the claimed composition.
In Formula 7b of Ahn, m, k, and r range from 1 – 30, 1 – 200, and 1 – 400, respectively (Col. 25 lines 59 – 64). By having the value of m range from 1 – 30, Ahn’s y and z values are each independently within the claimed range of an integer of 1 to 100, as m in Formula 7b pertains to the same groups as y and z in the applicant’s formula. The values of k and r in Formula 7b pertain to the same groups as o and x in the applicant’s formula and have disclosed ranges that overlap the claimed ranges of o and x, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness [MPEP 2144.05(I)].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed Invention, to have selected k and r values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success in forming an oligomer with the structure shown in Formula 7b that is suitable for use in a gel electrolyte for a battery and is capable of providing the benefits of improved mechanical properties, separator affinity, and ionic conductivity (Col. 27 lines 14 – 35; Col. 27 lines 42 – 50), because such values would be within the compositional ranges taught Ahn to provide such benefits.
In Example 2, Ahn prepares their gel electrolyte by using a combination of solvents including ethylene carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, and dimethyl carbonate with LiPF6 as the lithium salt (Col. 35 lines 13 – 17). Ahn generally teaches the use of non-aqueous solvents typically used in electrolyte solutions for a lithium secondary battery such as cyclic/linear carbonates, ethers, esters, amides, and nitriles (Col. 29 lines 26 – 32). Ahn further teaches that the solvents may be used alone or in mixtures (Col. 29 lines 26 – 32).
Ahn does not explicitly disclose the nonaqueous organic solvent consisting of: a glyme-based solvent; or a glyme-based solvent and a carbonate-based organic solvent.
Nakamoto teaches an electrolyte solution for a lithium battery comprising an electrolyte layer containing the electrolyte solution formed between a cathode having an oxide active material and an anode having a metal active material that may include an elemental metal, an alloy, and a metal oxide ([0044];[0047 – 0049];[0051 – 0052]). The electrolyte solution is taught to include a glyme solvent, Li amide salt and fluoride salt, and Nakamoto further teaches that the solvent of the electrolyte solution can only be the glyme or a mixture of the glume and other solvent ([0025];[0033 – 0036]). Nakamoto teaches a preference for having the ratio of the glyme relative to the whole solvent be 90 mol% or more, and thus suggests a preference for only using the glyme as the electrolyte solvent ([0036]). Glyme solvents taught by Nakamoto include diethylene glycol diethyl ether (G2), triethylene glycol dimethyl ether (G3), tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether (G4), diethylene glycol dibutyl ether, diethylene glycol methylethyl ether, triethylene glycol methylethyl ether, and triethylene glycol butylmethyl ether ([0032]). The electrolyte composition taught in Nakamoto exhibits an effect capable of suppressing lowering of reactivity of a Li ion and an electrode active material due to a glyme solvent and by extension achieves improved charge and discharge speed for charging and discharging at a higher rate ([0008 – 0009]).
Since Ahn generally teaches the use of non-aqueous solvents typically used in electrolyte solutions for a lithium secondary battery such as cyclic/linear carbonates, ethers, esters, amides, and nitriles alone or in mixtures (Col. 29 lines 26 – 32) and further also generally teaches using salts also taught in Nakamoto (Col. 29 lines 15 – 22), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use as the electrolyte solution of for Ahn’s exemplified gel polymer electrolyte, an electrolyte solution as taught in Nakamoto, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a battery with improved charge and discharge speed (Nakamoto: [0008 – 0009]).
Furthermore, selection of an electrolyte composition within the claimed the scope of “consisting of a glyme-based solvent” would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, because such a selection would be a selection from a finite list of options/obvious variant of solvent compositions taught by Nakamoto {i.e. Nakomoto only teaches/suggests to solvent composition options 1) having the glyme solvent make up all of the solvent or 2) having the glyme solvent make up a portion} and further would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing the desired charging/discharging speed improvement.
Glyme solvents taught by Nakamoto include diethylene glycol diethyl ether (G2), triethylene glycol dimethyl ether (G3), tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether (G4), diethylene glycol dibutyl ether, diethylene glycol methylethyl ether, triethylene glycol methylethyl ether, and triethylene glycol butylmethyl ether ([0032]). Nakamoto further teaches a preference for using tetraglyme {i.e. tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether} ([0010]).
The polymer electrolyte of modified Ahn has an electrolyte solution as taught by Nakamoto, as such modified Ahn suggests an electrolyte solution within the claimed scope of wherein when the non-aqueous organic solvent consists of a glyme-based solvent, the glyme-based solvent is tetraglyme and wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent does not include propylene carbonate. To further render obvious selection of tetraglyme as the solvent for modified Ahn as established above the following teachings from Iwaya are also relied upon:
Iwaya, also directed toward lithium ion battery electrolyte solutions including a glyme solvent, teaches that, diethylene glycol dimethyl ether (flash point: 50° C.), triethylene glycol dimethyl ether (flash point: 110° C.) or tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether (flash point: 144° C.) {i.e. tetraglyme} are glyme solvents that provide favorable conductivity as well as an excellent balance of both properties of the viscosity and the flash point ([0016];[0042]).
Therefore, since Nakamoto teaches from a finite list of glyme solvents, a preference for using tetraglyme, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to select, as the glyme solvent of modified Ahn, tetraglyme, and thus obtain a non-aqueous organic solvent consisting of tetraglyme and thus within the claimed scope, with a reasonable expectation of success that such a selection would be a suitable solvent for the electrolyte and further provide the benefits of favorable conductivity as well as balance of viscosity and the flash point properties.
By reciting “a non-aqueous organic solvent consisting of: a glyme-based solvent; or a glyme-based solvent and a carbonate-based organic solvent” and further “and wherein when the non-aqueous organic solvent consists of the glyme-based solvent and the carbonate-based solvent, the carbonate-based organic solvent includes a cyclic carbonate-based organic solvent and a linear carbonate-based organic solvent in a volume ratio of 0:10 to 1:9” (See objection of claim 21 above) claim 21 presents “a non-aqueous organic solvent consisting of a glyme-based solvent and a carbonate-based organic solvent” as an alternative to “a non-aqueous organic solvent consisting of: a glyme-based solvent” and further does not positively require the limitation “when the non-aqueous organic solvent consists of the glyme-based solvent and the carbonate-based solvent, the carbonate-based organic solvent includes a cyclic carbonate-based organic solvent and a linear carbonate-based organic solvent in a volume rate of 0:10 to 1:9”.
Therefore, by having a gel polymer electrolyte composition comprising a lithium salt (Ahn: Col. 2 lines 56 – 65; Col. 29 lines 15 – 22 and Nakamoto: [0009];[0011];[0033 – 0035]), an electrolyte solution that uses tetraglyme alone as the solvent (Nakamoto: [0008 – 0011]), and a polymerization initiator (AIBN; Col. 34 lines 66 – 67 and Col. 35 lines 1 – 9), the gel polymer electrolyte of modified Ahn, as established above has a gel polymer electrolyte composition consisting of (i) to (iv), and thus is within the claimed scope of (i) to (iv), (i) to (v), or (i) to (vi).
Regarding Claim 22 and 25, modified Ahn discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Modified Ahn’s electrolyte solution includes a Li amide salt, the Li amide salt is specifically taught to have a Li ion and a sulfonylamide anion (Nakamoto: [0033 – 0034]). Explicitly taught sulfonylamide anions include bisfluorosulfonylamide (FSA) and bistrifluoromethane sulfonylamide (TFSA) (Nakamoto: [0034]). By teaching a Li amide salt having a bisfluorosulfonylamide anion {i.e. one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize a lithium amide salt including a Li ion and bisfluorosulfonylamide anion to be LiFSI}, modified Ahn at least suggests a composition for the gel polymer electrolyte wherein the lithium salt is LiFSI (Claim 22 and 25).
Since Nakamoto exemplifies a finite list of only two lithium imide salts, selection of LiFSI for the Li amide salt of modified Ahn’s gel polymer electrolyte composition, would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success that such a selection would be suitable Li amide salt solution for modified Ahn and further would obtain the desired effect of suppressing the lowering if Li ion and electrode active material reactivity caused by a glyme solvent (Nakamoto: [0024 – 0025];[0034]).
Regarding Claims 23 – 24 and 26 – 27, modified Ahn discloses all the limitations as set forth above. In modified Ahn, the concentration of the lithium amide salt in the solvent is most preferably 2.5 mol/L to 6 mol/L (Nakamoto: [0041]), which overlaps the claimed range of 1.5 M to 4 M (Claims 23 and 26) and encompasses the claimed range of 2.8 M to 3.4 M (Claims 24 and 27).{Examiner Note: The examiner is interpreting the concentration to be a concentration of the salt in the nonaqueous solvent used in the gel polymer electrolyte composition, which appears to be supported by the concentrations reported in Table 1 and [00195] of the instant specification}.
Iwaya, also directed toward lithium ion battery electrolyte solutions including a glyme solvent, further teaches including fluorinated lithium ion salt in the electrolyte solution solvent and within their taught list of salts includes LiFSI ([0021 – 0022]). The preferred content in Iwaya is 0.1 – 3 mol/L for the purpose of obtaining a solution with high conductivity and an amount of salt that can easily be dissolved in the solvents of the electrolyte solution ([0024]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select a concentration within the overlapping portions of the taught and claimed ranges for modified Ahn’s Li amide salt, to maximize the beneficial effects of the salt {i.e. increase conductivity} while also balancing the effects the Li ion salt concentration has on the solubility of the salt in the electrolyte solvent, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See MPEP 2144. 05(II)].
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (WO2016053064A1, US10243239B1 used as English translation), Nakamoto (US PG Pub. 2016/0204471 A1) and Iwaya (US PG Pub. 2012/0107701 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Han ("Why is tris (trimethylsilyl) phosphite effective as an additive for high-voltage lithium-ion batteries?." Journal of Materials Chemistry A 3, no. 20, pp. 10900-10909, cited in prior Office action mailed 09/06/2025).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Ahn discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Ahn further teaches including additional electrolyte additives such as TMSPi and TFEPi in order to improve the performance of the gel polymer electrolyte (Col. 31 lines 41 – 46).
Modified Ahn does not specifically disclose an embodiment of the gel polymer electrolyte further comprising an oxygen scavenger.
In the instant specification, trisalkylsilyl phosphite-based compounds such as tris(methylsilyl) phosphite (TMSPi) and tris-2,2,2-trifluoroethyl phosphite (TFEPi) are provided as examples of oxygen scavengers that can be used in the applicant’s gel polymer electrolyte ([00139 – 00140]).
Han teaches that tris(trimethylsilyl) phosphite is a well-known electrolyte additive for lithium ion batteries with the capability to improve the electrochemical performance due to its oxidation potential, reduction potential, and high reactivity with HF molecules (Highlighted text on pgs. 10904 and 10907). The low oxidation potential of the phosphite allows for a protective, passivation film on the cathode surface while the low reduction potential decreases the possibility of side reactions from occurring at the anode surface (Highlighted text on pgs. 10902 – 10903). The high reactivity with HF allows for the tris(trimethylsilyl) phosphite material to reduce the concentration of HF molecules within the electrolyte; thus, preventing the dissolution of metal ions in the cathode material which can cause poor electrochemical performance (Highlighted text pgs. 10900 and 10904).
Since Ahn already teaches including such phosphite-compounds as electrolyte additives, and Yoon teaches adding additional additives in electrolyte to achieve improved battery characteristics or flame retardancy (Yoon: [0054]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Ahn’s gel polymer electrolyte composition by including tris(trimethylsilyl) phosphite, as taught by Han, and thus obtain the claimed gel polymer electrolyte that further comprises an oxygen scavenger, with a reasonable expectation of success in further enhancing the electrochemical performance of modified Ahn’s gel polymer electrolyte.
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 ARYANA Y ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM - 5:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/A.Y.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 3/23/2026