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 .
Claim Status
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on March 30th, 2026 have been entered into the file.
Currently claims 1-3, 6, 8, 11-12, and 18-21 are amended, claims 4-5 and 16-17 are cancelled, claims 13-15 are withdrawn, and claims 21-22 are new. resulting in claims 1-3, 6-12, 18-22 pending for examination.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed March 30th, 2026 have been entered into the file.
As indicated in the Advisory action mailed March 16th, 2026, the rejection of claims 4-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang and further in view of Tachikawa (Japanese Patent Publication No. 2010059093 A), as evidenced by the Merriam Webster Definition of "polymer" is withdrawn in light of applicant's arguments.
As indicated in the Advisory action mailed March 16th, 2026, the rejection of claims 6, 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang and Tachikawa and further in view of Matsumoto Non-Patent Literature "Fast cycling of Li/LiCoO2 cell with low-viscosity ionic liquids based on bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide [FSI]-") is withdrawn in light of applicant's arguments.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 have overcome the 35 USC § 112(a) rejection of claims 1-12, 18 previously set forth in the Final Rejection mailed November 28th, 2025.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 6 has overcome the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection of claims 6 with respect to lack of antecedent basis previously set forth in the Final Rejection mailed November 28th, 2025.
Claim Interpretation
Consistent with Figure 1A, poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS) recited in claim 18 is interpreted that one of the methyl groups may be substituted with 0 to 1 additional groups.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent on a cancelled claim (claim 5). For the purposes of examination, claim 18 will be considered dependent on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the instant claim recites “wherein the ion solvating moieties comprise polar ionic side chains.” However, the instant disclosure supports only the ion solvating moieties comprising pyrrolidinium (Py) bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (FSI) as the polar ionic side chains (Paragraph 0051). Therefore, the limitation of the ion solvating moieties comprising any polar ionic side chain in the instant claim is broader than the scope originally supported by the disclosure. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 2-3, 6-12, 18-20, they are rejected as being dependent on a previously rejected claim.
Further regarding claim 19, the claim recites “the electrolyte comprises a salt:monomer ratio of about 8:1,” wherein the salt is a lithium sodium salt and the monomers are polar ionic side chains. However, in the embodiment where salt:monomer ratio is 8:1 (Paragraphs 0007 and 0048), the instant specification recites a siloxane-based polymer with ionic-liquid based solvating units as polymer side chains (Paragraph 0006), the coordinated molecules are dimethoxymethane molecules, and the salt is a lithium salt (Paragraphs 0007). However, the instant claim, as written claims a salt:monomer ratio where the flexible polymer is any polymer with a non-polar backbone (not requiring polysiloxane backbone), the lithium or sodium ion coordinating molecule is any molecule (not requiring dimethoxymethane molecules), and the salt is a lithium or a sodium salt (not requiring a lithium salt). Therefore, the instant claim, as written, is broader than what is supported by the disclosure as originally filed. Thus the amendments are not supported and are considered new matter. Appropriate correction is required.
Further regarding claim 20, the claim recites “the electrolyte comprises a salt:monomer ratio of about 8:1,” wherein the salt is a lithium sodium salt and the monomers are PyFSI ionic side chains. However, in the embodiment where salt:monomer ratio is 8:1 (Paragraphs 0007 and 0048), the instant specification recites a siloxane-based polymer with ionic-liquid based solvating units as polymer side chains (Paragraph 0006), the coordinated molecules are dimethoxymethane molecules, and the salt is a lithium salt (Paragraphs 0007). However, the instant claim, as written claims a salt:monomer ratio where the flexible polymer is any polymer with a non-polar backbone (not requiring polysiloxane backbone), the lithium or sodium ion coordinating molecule is any molecule (not requiring dimethoxymethane molecules), and the salt is a lithium or a sodium salt (not requiring a lithium salt). Therefore, the instant claim, as written, is broader than what is supported by the disclosure as originally filed. Thus the amendments are not supported and are considered new matter. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 2, 18-20 are 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 2, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the salt” Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 18, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the non-polar siloxane backbone.” Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 19, the instant claim recites “the electrolyte comprises a salt:monomer ratio of about 8:1, wherein the salt:monomer ratio comprises a molar ratio between the lithium or sodium salt and the polar ionic side chain.” As written, the instant claim is unclear if the salt:monomer ratio is the molar ratio of the salt to the polar ionic sidechain or the molar ratio of salt to some subset of monomers. The instant claim describes the ratio as the molar ratio of a salt concentration to a monomer concentration, but proceeds to relate the molar amount of the lithium or sodium salt to the molar amount of the polar ionic side chain. It is unclear if the concentration of the polar ionic side chain is the same as the monomer of the salt:monomer ratio. As the polar ionic sidechains are not themselves monomers, the claim language is unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 20, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the PyFSI polymer side chains.” For the purposes of examination, the PyFSI polymer side chains of the instant claim are presumed to refer to the pyrrolidinium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide polar ionic side chains of claim 6. Appropriate correction is required.
Further regarding claim 20, the instant claim recites “the electrolyte comprises a salt:monomer ratio of about 8:1, wherein the salt:monomer ratio comprises a molar ratio between the lithium or sodium salt and the PyFSI polymer side chains.” As written, the instant claim is unclear if the salt:monomer ratio is the molar ratio of the salt to the polar ionic sidechain or the molar ratio of salt to some subset of monomers. The instant claim describes the ratio as the molar ratio of a salt concentration to a monomer concentration, but proceeds to relate the molar amount of the lithium or sodium salt to the molar amount of the polar ionic side chain. It is unclear if the concentration of the polar ionic side chain is the same as the monomer of the salt:monomer ratio. As the polar ionic sidechains are not themselves monomers and additionally the monomers may comprise other polar ionic side chains that are no pyrrolidinium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, the claim language is unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6-12, 18, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fanous (U.S. Patent No. 10601031 B2) in view of Chang (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170346137 A1) as evidenced by Henderson (Non-Patent Literature, “Glyme-Lithium Salt Phase Behavior”).
Regarding claim 1, Fanous discloses an electrolyte (polymer electrolyte) (Column 1, Lines 25-35) comprising a lithium or sodium salt (Column 94, Lines 55-67; Column 95, Lines 1-15).
Fanous teaches the electrolyte comprising a polymer including at least one repeating unit of the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
126
132
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, where A stands for a unit which forms the polymer backbone, X stands for a space bound to the polymer-backbone forming unit, x stands for the presence or absence of the spacer (x=0 or x=1), and Q stands for a group bound to the spacer or the backbone (when x=1 and x=0, respectively) (Column 2, Lines 25-40).
As polymers are known to have some degree of flexibility, the polymer of Fanous is considered a flexible polymer, meeting the instant claimed limitation of a flexible polymer.
Fanous teaches that A represents a polymer backbone-forming unit which is based on repeating units which include polymerized, in particular organic, carbonate group/s, and/or a polysiloxane and/or a polyphosphazene and/or a poly(methyl) methacrylate and/or a polymethacrylate and/or a polyphenylene (Column 23, Lines 55-65). Fanous describes in an embodiment that when the polymer backbone-forming unit A includes at least one siloxane, the resulting polymer has a low glass transition temperature and thus high conductivity (Column 24, Lines 1-5). As polysiloxane is known in the art to be a non-polar, the flexible polymer taught by Fanous is considered to teach the limitation of comprising a non-polar backbone or it would have been obvious to provide the variable A as polysiloxane for the resulting polymer to have a low glass transition temperature, as recognized by Fanous.
Fanous teaches that Q is a positively charged Q+ group which solvates or coordinates the anions of alkali metal conducting salts, in particular lithium conducting salt anions. Fanous teaches the result to be increases mobility of alkali anions, resulting in an advantageous increase in the lithium ion conductivity of the polymer (Column 3, Lies 25-35). Thus, the Q group of Fanous is considered an example of an ion solvating moiety, and the flexible polymer comprising a non-polar backbone taught by Fanous is considered to teach the limitation of having ion solvating moieties.
Fanous teaches that positively charged Q+ group may be a pyrrolidinium group (Column 10, Lines 28-35). As pyrrolidinium is known in the art to be polar and ionic, the pyrrolidinium Q+ ion solvating moiety discloses by Fanous is considered to be a polar ionic side chain, meeting the instant claimed limitation or it would have been obvious to provide the variable Q as a Q+ pyrrolidinium group in order to increase the mobility of alkali anions and polymer conductivity, as recognized by Fanous.
Fanous is silent as to the electrolyte comprising a lithium or sodium ion coordinating molecule. However, Fanous teaches it is possible to increase conductivity by admixing nonaqueous solvents used in liquid electrolytes, for example ether based solvents (Column 96, Lines 35-40).
Chang discloses an electrolyte comprising lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide salt (Paragraph 0120), a polymer (Paragraph 0092), and dimethoxyethane glyme solvent as a lithium coordinating molecule (Paragraphs 0120-0126), overlapping with the composition of the electrolyte in the instant disclosure and of Fanous. Chang teaches that the glyme solvent included in the electrolyte composition forms a complex with the lithium salt in order to improve the high temperature characteristics and improve stability against decomposition at high voltage (Paragraph 0126). Further, Henderson discloses that glyme-Li+ cation interactions are crucial to the performance of liquid as well as solid polymer electrolytes for electrochemical devices such as lithium batteries (Page 13177, Column 1). Therefore, Henderson teaches that it is known in the art to include glyme solvents such as dimethoxyethane (DME) in polymer electrolyte systems in order to coordinate lithium ions. Further, Fanous is open to such a modification, as DME is an ether-based solvent Fanous teaches may increase conductivity of the electrolyte system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte composition of Fanous which may include an ether-based solvent to incorporate the teachings of Chang as evidenced by Henderson in which the ether-based solvent is dimethoxyethane, a lithium-ion coordinating molecule. Doing so would advantageously improve the high temperature characteristics of the electrolyte and improve stability against decomposition at high voltage, as recognized by Chang.
The result of the modification is an electrolyte comprising a lithium ion coordinating molecule, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 2, Fanous teaches the electrolyte of claim 1.
As described above in the rejection of claim 1, Fanous teaches the electrolyte comprising a lithium or sodium salt. Also described above was the polar ionic side chain of the polymer of Fanous, represented by Q in the general formula, which may be cationic pyrrolidinium.
Fanous teaches that when Q of the general formula is cationic, namely Q+, the polymer of the polymer electrolyte of the disclosure is exemplified by the general formula
PNG
media_image2.png
121
132
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. Fanous teaches that Z- is the lithium conducting salt anion (Column 11), which is dissociated from the lithium cation of the lithium conducting salt, which improves mobility of the lithium ions and increases conductivity of the polymer electrolyte (Column 12, Lines 25-30).
Fanous teaches that in particular, Z- stands for bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (Column 12, Lines 60-65).
Thus, Fanous teaches that that lithium salt of the electrolyte may suitably comprise lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide.
Regarding claim 3, Fanous teaches the electrolyte of claim 1, wherein the ion coordinating molecule comprises dimethoxyethane (DME), as discussed above in the modification of Fanous in view of Chang as evidenced by Henderson.
Regarding claim 6, Fanous teaches the electrolyte according to claim 1.
As discussed above in the rejection of claims 1 and 2, Fanous teaches general formula for the polymer electrolyte represented by
PNG
media_image2.png
121
132
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, where the Q+ group is suitably a pyrrolidinium group and the Z- group coordinated by Q+ is suitably a bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide anion.
Thus, Fanous teaches the instant claimed limitation of the ion solvating moieties comprising a pyrrolidinium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide polar ionic side chain.
Regarding claim 7, Fanous teaches the electrolyte according to claim 3.
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, Fanous teaches an electrolyte with the instant claimed composition of a lithium salt, a lithium ion coordinating molecule, and a flexible polymer with ion solvating moieties. Further, as discussed above in the rejection of claims 1- 3, Fanous teaches the lithium salt is a LiFSI salt and modified Fanous teaches the ion coordinating molecule is dimethoxyethane (DME), respectively. As the electrolyte of Chang comprises the same constituent parts as the electrolyte of the instant disclosure, there is reasonable basis to conclude the DME coordinates with both the salt and the flexible polymer according to the limitations of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 8, Fanous teaches the electrolyte according to claim 1.
As discussed above, Q of the general formula is cationic, namely Q+, the polymer of the polymer electrolyte of the disclosure is exemplified by the general formula
PNG
media_image2.png
121
132
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. Fanous teaches that Z- is the lithium conducting salt anion (Column 11), which is dissociated from the lithium cation of the lithium conducting salt, which improves mobility of the lithium ions and increases conductivity of the polymer electrolyte (Column 12, Lines 25-30).
Therefore, Fanous teaches the electrolyte comprising bi(fluorosulfonyl)imide anions (the lithium conducting salt anion, Z-) and Li cations (cation of the lithium conducting salt), meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 9, Fanous teaches the electrolyte according to claim 1.
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, the glyme solvent of Fanous in view of Chang as evidenced by Henderson was considered equivalent to the lithium or sodium ion coordinating molecule.
Chang teaches the complex of glyme solvent and the lithium salt (Paragraph 0124) is characterized by the unshared electron pairs of the oxygen (O) in the glyme solvent forming coordinate bonds with the lithium of the lithium salt (Paragraph 0062). Thus the glyme solvent of Chang which modified Fanous as described above is considered a salt coordinating solvent, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 10, Fanous teaches the electrolyte according to claim 1.
Fanous teaches the electrolyte comprising a polymer composition, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Fanous teaches that it is possible to increase the conductivity of the electrolyte through the mixing of the composition with additional solvents (Column 96, Lines 37-40).
Therefore, Fanous teaches that at least a portion of the electrolyte may comprise a liquid (solvent) in addition to a polymer, and the electrolyte of Fanous is considered a liquid polymer electrolyte.
Regarding claim 11, Fanous teaches a battery including the electrolyte of claim 1 (Column 103, Lines 1-35).
Fanous does not explicitly teach a graphite anode and a nickel manganese cobalt oxide cathode including the electrolyte of claim 1.
However, as discussed above, Chang discloses an electrolyte comprising lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide salt (Paragraph 0120), a polymer (Paragraph 0092), and dimethoxyethane glyme solvent as a lithium coordinating molecule (Paragraphs 0120-0126), overlapping with the composition of the electrolyte in the instant disclosure. Chang discloses the electrolyte used in a battery comprising an anode made of graphite. Chang discloses that when a graphite negative electrode is used as the negative electrode of a lithium secondary battery and a solid electrolyte interphase is formed on its surface, the interfacial characteristics of the electrode may not change (Paragraph 0066), leading to continuously stable surface characteristics (Paragraph 0067). Chang further teaches the positive electrode active material comprising a lithium composite oxide, wherein the composite comprises lithium and at least one metal selected from cobalt, manganese, and nickel (Paragraph 0108).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery of Fanous to further incorporate the teachings of Chang in which the anode is a graphite anode and the cathode is a nickel manganese cobalt oxide cathode. Including an electrolyte composition comprising a lithium salt, lithium coordinating molecule, and a polymer in a battery with an anode and cathode made of graphite and nickel manganese cobalt oxide cathode, respectively, is known in the art as taught by Chang and further ensures the formation of a solid electrolyte interphase at the electrode surface, as taught by Chang.
Regarding claim 12, Fanous teaches a lithium metal battery including the electrolyte of claim 1.
Fanous teaches an electrochemical cell comprising the lithium ion-conducting polymer of the disclosure, the cell comprising an anode and a cathode. Fanous teaches the anode may include lithium (Column 103, Lines 1-35).
Fanous teaches the cathode material may include at least one conducting salt, particularly a lithium conducting salt (Column 100, Lines 60-65). Thus, Fanous teaches lithium may be suitably comprised in the cathode, meeting the instant claimed limitations of a lithium cathode.
Regarding claim 18, Fanous teaches the electrolyte of claim 1 (see claim objection above).
As discussed above, Fanous teaches a flexible polymer of the form
PNG
media_image1.png
126
132
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where A is a siloxane unit of a polysiloxane backbone and Q is a positively charged group (ion solvating moiety). When A is a siloxane unit and multiple units of A are assembled into a polymer backbone according to the teachings of Fanous (Column 2, Line 26), the result is a polysiloxane backbone.
Fanous further teaches the polymer backbone-forming unit is a siloxane unit given by the general chemical formula
PNG
media_image3.png
172
192
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where xq, denotes binding site for XQ (Columns 48-49; Lines 30-65 1-5), where X stands for a space bound to the polymer-backbone forming unit, and Q stands for a group bound to the spacer or the backbone (Column 2, Lines 25-40).
Fanous teaches the spacer may be absent from the monomer, which results in group Q bonded directly to the polymer backbone (Column 2, Lines 39-47). Fanous teaches that Q may be a neutral group represented by an alkyl group, particularly a methyl group. Fanous teaches the inclusion of a methyl group for Q in the flexible polymer may reduce the glass transition temperature (Column 17, Lines 28-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide at least one of the monomers of the polysiloxane backbone of Fanous as a siloxane monomer unit of the form
PNG
media_image3.png
172
192
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, where the spacer x is not present and q is a methyl group (resulting in polydimethylsiloxane), meeting the instant claimed limitation. Doing so would be useful to control the reduction of the glass transition temperature of the polymer, as recognized by Fanous.
Regarding claim 21, Fanous teaches an electrolyte (Colum 1, Lines 25-35). As discussed above, the electrolyte of Fanous comprises a lithium salt (Column 94, Lines 55-67; Column 95, Lines 1-15).
Further discussed above, Fanous teaches the electrolyte comprising a polymer including at least one repeating unit of the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
126
132
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, where A stands for a unit which forms the polymer backbone, X stands for a space bound to the polymer-backbone forming unit, x stands for the presence or absence of the spacer (x=0 or x=1), and Q stands for a group bound to the spacer or the backbone (when x=1 and x=0, respectively) (Column 2, Lines 25-40).
Fanous describes in an embodiment that when the polymer backbone-forming unit A includes at least one siloxane, the resulting polymer has a low glass transition temperature and thus high conductivity (Column 24, Lines 1-5). Therefore Fanous teaches the claimed limitation the electrolyte comprising a polysiloxane or it would have been obvious to provide the variable A as polysiloxane for the resulting polymer to have a low glass transition temperature, as recognized by Fanous.
Fanous teaches that Q is a positively charged Q+ group which solvates or coordinates the anions of alkali metal conducting salts, and that when Q of the general formula is cationic, namely Q+, the polymer of the polymer electrolyte of the disclosure is exemplified by the general formula
PNG
media_image2.png
121
132
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. Fanous teaches that Z- is the lithium conducting salt anion (Column 11), which is dissociated from the lithium cation of the lithium conducting salt, which improves mobility of the lithium ions and increases conductivity of the polymer electrolyte (Column 12, Lines 25-30).
Fanous teaches Q+ may be a pyrrolidinium group (Column 10, Lines 28-35) and in particular, Z- stands for bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (Column 12, Lines 60-65).
Thus, Fanous teaches that that lithium salt of the electrolyte may suitably comprise lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide and the polysiloxane comprises a pyrrolidinium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide polar ionic side chain, or it would have been obvious to provide the variable Q as a Q+ pyrrolidinium group and Z- as bos(fluorosulfonyl)imide in order to increase the mobility of alkali anions and polymer conductivity, as recognized by Fanous.
Fanous is silent as to the electrolyte comprising a lithium or sodium ion coordinating molecule. However, Fanous teaches it is possible to increase conductivity by admixing nonaqueous solvents used in liquid electrolytes, for example ether based solvents (Column 96, Lines 35-40).
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, Chang discloses an electrolyte comprising lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide salt (Paragraph 0120), a polymer (Paragraph 0092), and dimethoxyethane glyme solvent as a lithium coordinating molecule (Paragraphs 0120-0126), overlapping with the composition of the electrolyte in the instant disclosure and of Fanous. Chang teaches that the glyme solvent included in the electrolyte composition forms a complex with the lithium salt in order to improve the high temperature characteristics and improve stability against decomposition at high voltage (Paragraph 0126). Further, Henderson discloses that glyme-Li+ cation interactions are crucial to the performance of liquid as well as solid polymer electrolytes for electrochemical devices such as lithium batteries (Page 13177, Column 1). Therefore, Henderson teaches that it is known in the art to include glyme solvents such as dimethoxyethane (DME) in polymer electrolyte systems in order to coordinate lithium ions. Further, Fanous is open to such a modification, as DME is an ether-based solvent Fanous teaches may increase conductivity of the electrolyte system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte composition of Fanous which may include an ether-based solvent to incorporate the teachings of Chang as evidenced by Henderson in which the ether-based solvent is dimethoxyethane, a lithium-ion coordinating molecule. Doing so would advantageously improve the high temperature characteristics of the electrolyte and improve stability against decomposition at high voltage, as recognized by Chang.
The result of the modification is an electrolyte comprising a lithium ion coordinating molecule, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 22, Fanous electrochemical cell comprising a cathode, an anode, a separator, and the electrolyte of claim 21 (Column 103, Lines 10-35).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues in the remarks submitted March 30th, 2026 that the modification of Chang in view of Evans in the Final Rejection mailed November 28th, 2025 to provide the ion solvating moieties of Chang at 0.01 wt% to 75 wt% would not have been obvious, as Evans teaches the additives such as pyrrolidinium existing as free mobile ions in a liquid chain, not as part of (tethered to) a polymer backbone.
These arguments have been fully considered and are found persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-3, 7-12, and 19 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Evans and Wang is withdrawn.
Applicant argues in the remarks submitted on March 30th, 2026 that the modification of Chang in view of Fanous is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because the electrolytes of Chang are intended to include a glyme solvent while the electrolytes of Fanous are designed to exclude the use of glyme solvents to prevent polysulfide solubility in a lithium-sulfur cell.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner presents the teachings of Fanous with respect to glyme solvents (Column 30, Lines 45-55):
“A cathode-side polysulfide solubility which is reduced compared to use of unfluorinated ether-based liquid electrolytes, such as dimethoxyethane (DME) or dioxolane (DOL) and mixtures thereof, may advantageously be achieved by use of a polymer electrolyte, in particular which is not based or is only partially based on unfluorinated polyethylene oxide, for example which is not based on unfluorinated polyethylene oxide or which is based on fluorinated, in particular perfluorinated, polyethylene oxide. The capacity and thus the service life of the cell may advantageously be significantly improved in this way.”
As described above, Fanous does not teach away from the used of DME in the electrolyte, only that improvements with respect to the cathode-side polysulfide solubility can be improved by the use of a polymer electrolyte. The above section cited by applicant in their remarks does not restrict the electrolyte system to comprising no unfluorinated ether-based liquid electrolytes, such as dimethoxyethane (DME), just that better cell performance is attained through the implementation of a polymer in the electrolyte system. Further described above, Fanous is open to this modification, as Fanous teaches it is possible to increase the conductivity of the electrolyte by mixing in non-aqueous solvents used in liquid electrolytes, such as ether-based solvents (Column 96, Lines 37-45).
Therefore, there is nothing in Fanous to preclude the combination of the polymer electrolyte with a lithium-coordinating solvent such as DME set forth above in the rejection of Fanous in view of Chang.
Applicant argues in the remarks submitted on March 30th, 2026 that there is no teaching or suggestion in Fanous that would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to specifically choose a polymer of the general formula of Fanous, where A comprises a siloxane unit of a polysiloxane backbone and Q is a positively charged group, as Fanous teaches numerous different polymers and combinations of polymer backbone-forming units that can be used as the polymer backbone.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner presents that as described above, Fanous describes in an embodiment that when the polymer backbone-forming unit A includes at least one polysiloxane (Column 23, Lines 45-65), the resulting polymer has a low glass transition temperature and thus high conductivity (Column 24, Lines 1-5). Additionally, Fanous teaches that when Q is a positively charged Q+ group, the Q portion of the general formula of Fanous solvates/coordinates the anions of alkali metal conducting salts, in particular lithium conducting salt anions. Fanous teaches the result to be increases mobility of alkali anions, resulting in an advantageously increase in the lithium ion conductivity of the polymer (Column 3, Lies 25-35).
Therefore, the Examiner presents that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to select polysiloxane as the backbone A of the polymer taught by Fanous in order to lower the glass transition temperature of the resulting polymer and increase conductivity, as recognized by Fanous. It would have additionally been obvious to select the group Q of the polymer taught by Fanous to be a positively charged Q+ group in order to increase the mobility of the alkali anions and improve lithium ion conductivity of the polymer, as recognized by Fanous.
Thus, while Fanous teaches numerous different polymers and combinations of polymer backbone-forming units, Fanous clearly teaches the advantages of making the aforementioned selections for A and Q of the general formula, as described above, that would be obvious to the ordinary artisan, rendering these claimed limitations obvious over Fanous.
Applicant argues in the remarks submitted March 30th, 2026 that the modification of Chang in view of Tachikawa does not teach or suggest an electrolyte comprising a flexible polymer that comprises a non polar backbone with ion solvating moieties, where the ion solvating moieties comprise polar side chains.
These arguments have been fully considered and are found persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 4-5 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Tachikawa is withdrawn.
Applicant argues in the remarks submitted March 30th, 2026 that the modification of Chang in view of Tachikawa and Matsumoto does not cure the deficiencies of Chang in view of Tachikawa described above, particularly drawn to an electrolyte comprising a flexible polymer that comprises a non polar backbone with ion solvating moieties, where the ion solvating moieties comprise polar side chains.
These arguments have been fully considered and are found persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 6, 18, and 20 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Tachikawa and Matsumoto is withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights