Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/771,287

GELLED ELECTROLYTE FOR LITHIUM-ION ELECTROCHEMICAL CELL

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Apr 22, 2022
Examiner
HANSEN, JARED A
Art Unit
1723
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Saft
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
55 granted / 101 resolved
-10.5% vs TC avg
Strong +45% interview lift
Without
With
+45.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
148
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
54.6%
+14.6% vs TC avg
§102
18.0%
-22.0% vs TC avg
§112
17.8%
-22.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 101 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of group II in the reply filed on 18 December 2025 is acknowledged. Applicant has cancelled claims 1-11, group I. Information Disclosure Statement The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. The examiner further notes that no English translation for the foreign patent cited in the IDS filed 22 April 2022 has not been provided and so has not been considered. The English translation for the Incoming Written Opinion has also not been provided. Claim Objections Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16 line 2 recites “1,5 V” which appears to be a minor typo and should be “1.5 V” and will be interpreted this way by the examiner. 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. Claims 16 and 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 16 lines 12-13 and 24 recites the limitations “such as the compounds Li4/3Ti5/3O4 (Li4Ti5O12), Li8/3Ti4/3O4(Li2TiO3), Li8/7Ti12/7O4 (Li2Ti3O7), LiTi2O4, LixTi2O4 with 0<x≤2 and Li4/7Na4/7Ti12/7O4 (Li2Na2Ti6O14)” and “such as TiNb2O7, Ti2Nb2O9 and Ti2Nb10O29”, respectively, which render the meaning of the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the narrower limitations are required or optional. In order to advance prosecution the examiner will be interpreting the limitations as being optional. Claim 21 lines 2-3 recites the limitation “is composed solely of dimethyl carbonate (DMC)” which renders the meaning of the claim indefinite. Claim 12, upon which claim 21 depends, recites the limitation “a solvent comprising at least one linear carbonate”. DMC is not a linear carbonate and it is unclear how applicant intends the solvent to comprise at least one linear carbonate and be composed solely of DMC, a cyclic carbonate. For purposes of examination the examiner will be interpreting the limitation of claim 21 as optional and not required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 12-14, 18-24 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee US20220094027A1. Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses an electrochemical cell (Lee, [0049], Fig. 2, battery 200) comprising: at least one cathode (Lee, [0049], Fig. 2, electrode 20), at least one anode (Lee, [0049], Fig. 2, electrode 10) comprising an electrochemically active material operating at a potential of about 1.5 V versus the Li+/Li couple (Lee, [0111]; following Instant [0077-0078]), a gel-type electrolyte (Lee, [0097]) comprising a matrix which is a poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) polymer (P(VdF-HFP)) (Lee, [0100]) in which is embedded a liquid mixture comprising at least one lithium salt (Lee, [0106]) and a solvent comprising at least one linear carbonate (Lee, [0106], EMC), the polv(vinvlidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) (P(VdF-HFP)) polymer matrix representing 5 to 95% by weight relative to the weight of the gel-type electrolyte (Lee, [0100], 20 to 62.5% by weight), the liquid mixture representing 95 to 5% by weight relative to the weight of the gel-type electrolyte (Lee, [0100], 37.5 to 80% by weight). Regarding claim 13, Lee also discloses wherein the cathode comprises an electrochemically active material (Lee, [0114]) able to operate at a voltage of at least 4.5 V versus the Li+/Li couple (Lee, [0131]; following Instant [0037] and [0042]). Regarding claim 14, Lee additionally discloses wherein the electrochemically active material able to operate at a voltage of at least 4.5 V versus the Li+/Li couple is selected from the group composed of a compound from group v) of formula LixM1−y−z−wM′yM″zM′″wO2 where M, M′, M″ and M′″ are selected from the group composed of Mn, Co, Ni provided that at least M or M′ or M″ or M′″ is selected from among Mn, Co, Ni, M, M′, M″ and M′″ differing from each other; and 0.8≤x≤1.4; 0≤y≤0.5; 0≤z≤0.5; 0≤w≤0.2 and x+y+z+w<2.1 (Lee, [0131], LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2). Regarding claim 18, Lee further disclose wherein the poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) polymer matrix represents 5 to 25 % by weight of the weight of the gel-type electrolyte (Lee, [0100], 20 to 62.5% by weight). Regarding claim 19, Lee also discloses wherein the solvent comprises ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) (Lee, [0106], EMC) and optionally another linear carbonate (Lee, [0106]). Regarding claim 20, Lee additionally discloses wherein the solvent comprises dimethyl carbonate (DMC) (Lee, [0106], DMC) and optionally another linear carbonate (Lee, [0106]). Regarding claim 21, Lee further discloses wherein the solvent is composed solely of ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) (Lee, [0106], “an organic solvent including…ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC)…or a mixture thereof”). Regarding claim 22, Lee also discloses wherein the solvent comprises at least one cyclic carbonate (Lee, [0133], vinylene carbonate) and the proportion of said at least one cyclic carbonate is less than or equal to 10 % by volume relative to the volume of the solvent (Lee, [0133]], 0.5 wt% ≈ 0.4 vol%). Regarding claim 23, Lee additionally discloses wherein the proportion of said at least one cyclic carbonate is less than or equal to 5 % by volume relative to the volume of the solvent (Lee, [0133]], 0.5 wt% ≈ 0.4 vol%). Regarding claim 24, Lee further discloses wherein the solvent does not comprise a cyclic carbonate (Lee, [0106], “an organic solvent including…ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC)…or a mixture thereof”). Regarding claim 28, Lee also discloses wherein said at least one lithium salt is lithium hexafluorophosphate LiPF6 (Lee, [0101], Li+X-, X = PF6). 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee US20220094027A1 in view of Jeon US20150004475A1. Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not disclose wherein the electrochemically active material operating at a potential of about 1.5 V versus the Li+/Li couple is selected from the group composed of: a compound from group a) of formula Lix−aMaTiy−bM′bO4−c−dXc where 0<x≤3; 1≤y≤2.5; 0≤a≤1; 0≤b≤; 0≤c≤2 and −2.5≤d≤2.5; M is at least one element selected from the group composed of Na, K, Mg, Ca, B, Mn, Fe, Co, Cr, Ni, Al, Cu, Ag, Pr, Y and La; M′ is at least one element selected from the group composed of B, Mo, Mn, Ce, Sn, Zr, Si, W, V, Ta, Sb, Nb, Ru, Ag, Fe, Co, Ni, Zn, Al, Cr, La, Pr, Bi, Sc, Eu, Sm, Gd, Ti, Ce, Y and Eu, X is at least one element selected from the group composed of S, F, Cl and Br; such as the compounds Li4/3Ti5/3O4 (Li4Ti5O12), Li8/3Ti4/3O4(Li2TiO3), Li8/7Ti12/7O4 (Li2Ti3O7), LiTi2O4, LixTi2O4 with 0<x≤2 and Li4/7Na4/7Ti12/7O4 (Li2Na2Ti6O14), a compound from group b) of formula HxTiyO4 where 0≤x≤1; 0<y≤2, such as H8/13Ti24/13O4 (H2Ti6O13), H8/25Ti48/25O4 (H2Ti12O25) and Ti2O4(TiO2); a compound from group c) of formula LixTia−yMyNbb−zM′zO((x+4a+5b)/2)−c−dXc where 0≤x≤5; 0≤y≤1; 0≤z≤2; 1≤a≤5; 1≤b≤25; 0.25≤a/b≤2; 0≤c≤2 and 0≤d≤2; a−y>0; b−z>0; d representing an oxygen vacancy, M and M′ each being at least one element selected from the group composed of Li, Na, K, Mg, Ca, B, Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Al, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, Ru, Ag, Sn, Sb, Ta, W, Bi, La, Pr, Eu, Nd and Sm; X is at least one element selected from the group composed of S, F, Cl and Br, such as TiNb2O7, Ti2Nb2O9 and Ti2Nb10O29; d) a mixture of several compounds from groups a) to c). Jeon teaches wherein the electrochemically active material operating at a potential of about 1.5 V versus the Li+/Li couple is selected from the group composed of: a compound from group a) of formula Lix−aMaTiy−bM′bO4−c−dXc where 0<x≤3; 1≤y≤2.5; 0≤a≤1; 0≤b≤; 0≤c≤2 and −2.5≤d≤2.5, M is at least one element selected from the group composed of Fe, Al, Cu,, M′ is at least one element selected from the group composed of Sn, Zr, Sb, Fe, Al, , Y and Eu, X is at least one element selected from the group composed of F, Cl and Br (Jeon, [0046-0050]), a compound from group c) of formula LixTia−yMyNbb−zM′zO((x+4a+5b)/2)−c−dXc where 0≤x≤5; 0≤y≤1; 0≤z≤2; 1≤a≤5; 1≤b≤25; 0.25≤a/b≤2; 0≤c≤2 and 0≤d≤2; a−y>0; b−z>0; d representing an oxygen vacancy, M and M′ each being at least one element selected from the group composed of Ti, Fe, Cu, Zn, Al, Zr, Nb, Sn, Sb; X is at least one element selected from the group composed of F, Cl and Br (Jeon, [0046-0050]). Therefore it would be obvious to modify the electrochemically active material operating at a potential of about 1.5 V versus the Li+/Li couple of Lee with the teaching of Jeon wherein the electrochemically active material operating at a potential of about 1.5 V versus the Li+/Li couple is selected from the group composed of: a compound from group a) of formula Lix−aMaTiy−bM′bO4−c−dXc where 0<x≤3; 1≤y≤2.5; 0≤a≤1; 0≤b≤; 0≤c≤2 and −2.5≤d≤2.5, M is at least one element selected from the group composed of Fe, Al, Cu,, M′ is at least one element selected from the group composed of Sn, Zr, Sb, Fe, Al, , Y and Eu, X is at least one element selected from the group composed of F, Cl and Br, a compound from group c) of formula LixTia−yMyNbb−zM′zO((x+4a+5b)/2)−c−dXc where 0≤x≤5; 0≤y≤1; 0≤z≤2; 1≤a≤5; 1≤b≤25; 0.25≤a/b≤2; 0≤c≤2 and 0≤d≤2; a−y>0; b−z>0; d representing an oxygen vacancy, M and M′ each being at least one element selected from the group composed of Ti, Fe, Cu, Zn, Al, Zr, Nb, Sn, Sb; X is at least one element selected from the group composed of F, Cl and Br thereby improving lifespan characteristics (Jeon, [0083]). Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the liquid mixture comprises lithium hexafluorophosphate LiPF6 (Lee, [0101], Li+X-, X = PF6) and ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) as solvent (Lee, [0106], EMC), but does not discloses wherein the electrochemically active material of the cathode has the formula LiNixMyMn2−x−yO4 with 0<x≤1, 0≤y≤0.1 where M is at least one element selected from among Fe, Co and Al; the electrochemically active material of the anode has the formula Lix−aMaTiy−bM′bO4−c−dXc, where 0.5≤x≤3; 1≤y≤2.5; a=0; b=0; c=0 and d=0. Jeon teaches wherein the electrochemically active material of the cathode has the formula LiNixMyMn2−x−yO4 with 0<x≤1, 0≤y≤0.1 where M is at least one element selected from among Fe, Co and Al (Jeon, [0037-0039], [0043-0045]), and wherein the electrochemically active material of the anode has the formula Lix−aMaTiy−bM′bO4−c−dXc, where 0.5≤x≤3; 1≤y≤2.5; a=0; b=0; c=0 and d=0 (Jeon, [0051-0054]). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrochemically active material of the cathode and anode of Lee with the teaching of Jeon wherein the electrochemically active material of the cathode has the formula LiNixMyMn2−x−yO4 with 0<x≤1, 0≤y≤0.1 where M is at least one element selected from among Fe, Co and Al; the electrochemically active material of the anode has the formula Lix−aMaTiy−bM′bO4−c−dXc, where 0.5≤x≤3; 1≤y≤2.5; a=0; b=0; c=0 and d=0, thereby improving lifespan characteristics (Jeon, [0083]). Claim(s) 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee US20220094027A1 in view of Yamazaki JP2009123707A (using machine English translation provided). Regarding claim 25, Lee also discloses wherein the solvent comprises at least one non-fluorinated linear carbonate (Lee, [0106], EMC) but does not disclose wherein the solvent comprises at least one fluorinated linear carbonate. Yamazaki teaches wherein the solvent comprises at least one fluorinated linear carbonate (Yamazaki, [0034-0035]). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solvent of Lee with the teaching of Yamazaki wherein the solvent comprises at least one fluorinated linear carbonate, thereby reliably improving cycle characteristics (Yamazaki, [0034]). Regarding claim 26, Lee as modified by Yamazaki above however does not teach wherein said at least one fluorinated linear carbonate does not represent more than 30 % by volume of the linear carbonates. Yamazaki teaches wherein said at least one fluorinated linear carbonate does not represent more than 30 % by volume of the linear carbonates (Yamazaki, [0069], FDMC 1 vol% total and 2 vol% of linear carbonates). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one fluorinated linear carbonate of modified Lee with the teaching of Yamazaki wherein said at least one fluorinated linear carbonate does not represent more than 30 % by volume of the linear carbonates, thereby reliably improving cycle characteristics (Yamazaki, [0034]). Regarding claim 27, Lee as modified above by Yamazaki additionally teaches wherein said at least one fluorinated linear carbonate does not represent more than 10 % by volume of the linear carbonates (Yamazaki, [0069], FDMC 1 vol% total and 2 vol% of linear carbonates). Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee US20220094027A1, as applied to claim 28 above. Regarding claim 29, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations of claim 28 as set forth above including wherein said at least one lithium salt is lithium hexafluorophosphate LiPF6 (Lee, [0101], Li+X-, X = PF6) and while Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the contribution of lithium ions made by LiPF6 represents at least 90 % of the total quantity of lithium ions of the electrolyte, it would be obvious to the skilled artisan wherein the lithium ions of the electrolyte are contributed by LiPF6 as the electrolyte consisting of a lithium salt (Lee, [0100]) such as LiPF6 (Lee, [0133]) satisfies the limitation wherein the contribution of lithium ions made by LiPF6 represents at least 90 % of the total quantity of lithium ions of the electrolyte, thereby allowing the battery electrolyte to function (Lee, [0101]). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Winterberg US20040029008A1 (discloses a P(VDF-HFP) gel electrolyte) Koh US20120301794A1 (discloses a P(VDF-HFP) gel electrolyte and similar anode/cathode materials), Reiter US20220173435A1 (discloses a gel electrolyte comprising fluorinated carbonates). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F. 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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. /JARED HANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 22, 2022
Application Filed
Dec 01, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12586859
Battery Module and Method of Manufacturing the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12562437
INTERCONNECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12542288
FUEL CELL MEMBRANE HUMIDIFIER AND FUEL CELL SYSTEM HAVING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12542287
FUEL TANK HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM FOR FUEL CELL COOLING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12537260
ENERGY STORAGE UNIT WITH ACTIVE VENTILATION SYSTEM AND ASSOCIATED METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

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

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+45.1%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 101 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month