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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2 and 4-16 are currently pending;
Claim 15 is currently withdrawn;
Claim 3 is currently cancelled;
Claim 16 is new;
Claims 1, 4, and 9 are currently amended.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending Since the Office Action of 03/19/2026
The 112(b) rejections of claims 3-4 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment;
The 103 rejections of claims 1-2, 4-8, and 10-14 are maintained;
The 103 rejection of claim 9 is withdrawn and replaced with a new 103 rejection in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 with respect to the newly added amendment of “lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide” in claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “the prior art references provide no teaching or suggestion on the addition of lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide” (Remarks, pg. 8). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Noda teaches that the electrolyte composition includes a lithium salt such as LiN(CF3SO2)2, LiC4F9SO3, LiCF3CO2, or LiN(CF3CO2)2 (Noda [0065]). While none of these salts are lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, it would be a simple substitution of one known element for another in view of Vallee. Vallee also teaches that the polymerizable composition contains a lithium salt, and Vallee teaches that the lithium salt can be lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiN(FSO2)2) or lithium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide (LiN(CF3SO2)2) (Vallee [0065]). Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Noda and replaced the type of lithium electrolyte salt of Noda with lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide. Doing so is known in the art and would be a simple substitution of one known element for another of two lithium electrolyte salts to yield the predictable result of providing adequate ionic conductivity to the final solid polymer electrolyte (Vallee [0065]).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/11/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Noda in view of Vallee and Homann.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/11/2026, with respect to newly added claim 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-2 and 4-16 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.
In regards to claim 1, the limitation “wherein the salt of the alkaline metal is not lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide” in line 16 is not supported by the specification as originally filed. The instant specification only states in paragraph [0022] that “[t]he third moiety comprises a salt of an alkaline metal and/or a salt of an alkaline-earth metal. Advantageously, the alkaline metal contains, or substantially consists of, lithium, and the salt is a lithium salt. Advantageously, the alkaline-earth metal contains, or substantially consists of, magnesium, and the salt is a magnesium salt.” A similar statement is taught in paragraph [0056]. The example teaches that the third moiety of the second polymer is STFSILi in paragraph [0092]. However, none of these disclose or indicate that the salt of the alkaline metal in relation to the third moiety of the second polymer does not comprise lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide. As such, the newly added limitation of “wherein the salt of the alkaline metal is not lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide” in line 16 of claim 1 is not supported and fails to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 2 and 4-16 are also rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda et al. (JP-2000222939-A), hereinafter Noda, as cited in the IDS, in view of Vallee et al. (US-20180261883-A1), hereinafter Vallee.
Regarding claim 1, Noda teaches a polymerizable composition for a solid polymer electrolyte comprising: a first polymer ([0074] methoxypolyethylene glycol monomethacrylate) comprising a first moiety and a second moiety, the first moiety being capable of coordinating cations of an alkaline metal and/or of an alkaline-earth metal ([0074] methoxypolyethylene glycol), the second moiety being photo-activable and/or heat-activable ([0074 monomethacrylate); an oligomer having at least two photo-activable and/or heat-activable groups ([0074] polyethylene glycol dimethacrylate); a solvent ([0074] acetonitrile solvent); and a polymerization initiator ([0076] 2,2-dimethoxy-2,2'-phenylacetophenone); wherein the polymerisation initiator allows initiating polymerisation between the second moiety of the first polymer and the photo-activable and/or heat-activable groups of the oligomer by the action of a temperature comprised between 20°C and 150°C or of a radiation ([0076] irradiated with ultraviolet light at 25°C).
Noda fails to teach a second polymer comprising a third moiety, the third moiety comprising a salt of an alkaline metal or of an alkaline-earth metal, wherein the salt of the alkaline metal is not lithium bis(flourosulfonyl)imide.
Vallee is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of polymers for electrolytes ([0001]). Vallee teaches a second polymer comprising a third moiety, the third moiety comprising a salt of an alkaline metal or of an alkaline-earth metal, wherein the salt of the alkaline metal is not lithium bis(flourosulfonyl)imide. ([0008] BAB type polymer wherein block B is an anionic polymer to which is grafted an anion of lithium salt; [0062] advantageously mixed with cross-linkable polyoxyethylene glycol dimethacrylate; [0026] the anion of lithium salt may be LiTFSI that is not lithium bis(flourosulfonyl)imide).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Noda and added the second polymer of Vallee. Doing so improves the electrochemical performance by increasing the Li ions transport number and enables the production of stronger and thinner electrolyte films (Vallee [0008]-[0010]) and provides access to the grafted anions of lithium salt (Vallee [0062]).
Noda also teaches that the polymerizable composition contains a salt ([0065] lithium salt; [0041] lithium salts including LiN(CF3SO2)2, LiC4F9SO3, LiCF3CO2, and LiN(CF3CO2)2). Noda fails to teach the polymerizable composition for a solid polymer electrolyte comprising lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide.
Vallee teaches that a lithium salt can be lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiN(FSO2)2) or lithium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide (LiN(CF3SO2)2) as Noda teaches (Vallee [0065]). As such, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Noda and replaced the type of lithium electrolyte salt of Noda with lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide. Doing so is known in the art and would be a simple substitution of one known element for another of two lithium electrolyte salts to yield the predictable result of providing adequate ionic conductivity to the final solid polymer electrolyte (Vallee [0065]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Noda teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Noda also teaches comprising between 10% and 50% by weight of the first polymer ([0074]-[0076] 2 parts by weight based on a total of 15.05 parts by weight in [0076] is about 13.3% by weight), between 1% and 20% by weight of the oligomer [0074]-[0076] 2 parts by weight based on a total of 15.05 parts by weight yielding about 13.3 wt%), between 20% and 60% by weight of the solvent ([0074]-[0076] of the 15.05 parts by weight in [0076], 5.05 parts by weight are the other components excluding the (Li(CF3SO2)2N), meaning the remainder 10 parts is the solvent and (Li(CF3SO2)2N), yielding around 66%). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Noda also teaches between 0.01% and 2% by weight of the polymerisation initiator ([0076] 0.05 parts by weight based on 15.05 parts by weight, yielding 0.33 wt%; alternatively [0054] 0.1 to 1.0 parts by weight of the crosslinkable compound having an ether bond and a crosslinkable functional group), based on the total weight of the polymerisable composition.
Modified Noda fails to teach between 1% and 20% by weight of the second polymer. However, this value is optimizable. Vallee teaches that the relative proportions of the polymers of block A and B can be adjusted to give the desired properties of mechanical hardness and adhesion for the electrolyte (Vallee [0028]), and that the polymer must be added in addition to a lithium salt to provide adequate ionic conductivity to the final electrolyte (Vallee [0065]). Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the weight percentage of the second polymer such as to give the desired properties of mechanical hardness and adhesion and to provide sufficient ionic conductivity in conjunction with a separate lithium salt (Vallee [0028];[0065]). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, modified Noda teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Noda fails to explicitly teach comprising between 0.5% and 5% by weight of lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, based on the total weight of the polymerisable composition. Noda does teach that the ratio of the salt to the crosslinked compound is preferably in the range of 0.0001 to 5 based on the ratio of the number of moles of the electrolyte salt to the number of moles of the ether bond units in the crosslinked compound and 0.0001 to 5 based on the ratio of the number of moles of the electrolyte salt to the number of moles of ether bond units in the siloxane derivative ([0043]). Noda also teaches in example 1 the salt is added in 1.0 mol/kg relative to the siloxane derivative ([0074]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the weight of the salt lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide such as to obtain high ionic conductivity (Noda [0043]). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, modified Noda teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Noda also teaches wherein the first moiety contains a polyethylene oxide moiety ([0074] methoxypolyethylene glycol).
Regarding claim 6, modified Noda teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Noda also teaches wherein at least one of the photo-activable and/or heat-activable groups is an end group (see polyethylene glycol dimethacrylate and methoxypolyethylene glycol monomethacrylate in chemical formulas 28 and 29 above [0076] in the Japanese language version of Noda provided in the IDS; the Espacenet translation does not include the formulas).
Regarding claim 7, modified Noda teaches all of the limitations of claim 6. Noda also teaches wherein all of the photo-activable and/or heat-activable groups of the oligomer are end groups, and the oligomer is a telechelic oligomer (see chemical formula 28 polyethylene glycol dimethacrylate).
Regarding claim 10, modified Noda teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Noda also teaches wherein the polymerisation is a polymerisation between the second moiety of the first polymer, the photo- activable and/or heat-activable groups of the oligomer and advantageously the second polymer by the action of a temperature comprised between 20°C and 150°C or of a radiation ([0074]-[0076] irradiated with UV light in air at 25 °C to cause polymerization reaction).
Regarding claim 11, modified Noda teaches all of the limitations of claim 9. Noda also teaches wherein the polymerisation is carried out by action of a UV radiation ([0074]-[0076] irradiated with UV light in air at 25 °C to cause polymerization reaction).
Regarding claim 12, modified Noda teaches all of the limitations of claim 10. Noda also teaches a battery element, comprising the solid polymer electrolyte according to claim 10 ([0077]; [0060]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Noda teaches all of the limitations of claim 12. Noda also teaches further comprising an anode comprising an alkaline metal or an alkaline-earth metal ([0062] lithium metal or a metal capable of absorbing and desorbing lithium ions).
Regarding claim 14, modified Noda teaches all of the limitations of claim 13. Noda also teaches wherein the alkaline metal is lithium or the alkaline-earth metal is magnesium ([0062] lithium metal).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda in view of Vallee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Michot et al. (US-20020128364-A1), hereinafter Michot.
Regarding claim 8, modified Noda teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Noda fails to teach wherein one or more of the second moiety and of the photo-activable and/or heat-activable groups is a maleimide.
Michot is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of polymers for electrolytes ([0021]). Michot teaches wherein one or more of the second moiety and of the photo-activable and/or heat-activable groups is a maleimide ([0058] maleimides, acrylates, and methacrylates are known as activated by heat or free radical sources).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the methacrylate in the second moiety or the photoactivable and/or heat-activable groups with a maleimide as they are art recognized equivalents both known for use as a group activable by heat or free radical sources (Michot [0058]). In addition, the maleimide shows advantage over the methacrylate for this use as it also is barely sensitive to oxygen (Michot [0058]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda in view of Vallee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Homann et al. (US-20240120533-A1), hereinafter Homann.
Regarding claim 9, modified Noda teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Noda fails to teach wherein the oligomer has a molar mass comprised between 750 g/mol and 5,000 g/mol.
Homann is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of solid electrolytes ([0001]). Homann teaches that the oligomer has a molar mass comprised between 750 g/mol and 5,000 g/mol ([0001] the crosslinked polymer includes polyethylene glycol dimethacrylate (PEGdMA), such as taught by Noda in Noda [0074]; the average molecular weight of the PEGdMA is greater than 300 g/mol and less than or equal to 1000 g/mol, with a preferable range of 600 g/mol to 850 g/mol). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Noda and modified the molar mass of the polyethylene glycol dimethacrylate oligomer such that it has a molar mass comprised between 750 g/mol and 5,000 g/mol. Doing so allows for preferential stability while avoiding a reduction in mechanical strength associated with longer or shorter chain lengths (Homann [0026]).
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 MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722 /NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights