Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/596,108

ELECTROLYTIC SOLUTION, SECONDARY BATTERY, AND MODULE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Dec 03, 2021
Examiner
MERKLING, MATTHEW J
Art Unit
1725
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Daikin Industries Ltd.
OA Round
6 (Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
851 granted / 1253 resolved
+2.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
1306
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
49.1%
+9.1% vs TC avg
§102
26.3%
-13.7% vs TC avg
§112
18.2%
-21.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1253 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
Tar 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 . 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. Specification The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted. 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. Claim(s) 3-5, 7-17 and 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US 2016/0190650) in view of Teng (CN 110649312A with references made to the machine translation). Regarding claim 3, Seo discloses an electrolytic solution for an alkali metal ion secondary battery, the alkali metal ion secondary battery comprising a positive electrode (13) and a negative electrode (11) containing simple lithium metal (as explicitly stated in paragraph 81 which states that the anode can contain lithium metal), wherein the positive electrode comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of an alkali metal-containing transition metal composite oxide and an alkali metal-containing transition metal phosphate compound (see paragraph 80 which give several examples of an alkali metal-containing transition metal composite oxide such as LixCoO2), and the electrolytic solution comprises a compound represented by the following formula (1) (see formula 2 in claim 2 of Seo) and/or a compound represented by the following formula (2) (see formula 3 in claim 2 of Seo). Seo discloses the addition of an additive to the electrolyte to assist in forming an SEI layer (see paragraph 75). However, Seo does not teach the claimed composition (fluorinated chain carbonate) in the claimed amount. Katou also discloses a lithium ion secondary battery (see abstract). Katou, like Seo, teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte for use in a lithium ion battery (see abstract). Katou goes on to disclose an electrolyte that includes a fluorinated chain carbonate in an amount (0.1 to 70vol% relative to the solvent, see lines 410-421) that overlaps the claimed range. Katou teaches this electrolytic solution in its proportions in order to generate an electrolyte solution that produces a lower viscosity and an increased conductivity electrolyte while also increasing the oxidation resistance of the electrolyte (lines 410-421). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the fluorinated chain carbonate additive in the amount disclosed by Katou, to the electrolyte of Seo in order to generate an electrolyte solution that produces a lower viscosity and an increased conductivity electrolyte while also increasing the oxidation resistance of the electrolyte. Furthermore, while modified Seo does not explicitly teach the claimed range, it does teach an overlapping range. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)). Regarding claims 4 and 9, Seo further discloses the alkali metal-containing transition metal composite oxide can be LixCoO2 (where 0.5<x<1.3, see paragraph 80) which reads on the claimed formula 3-4. Regarding claims 5 and 8, Seo further discloses the alkali metal-containing transition metal phosphate can be LixCoPO4 (where 0.5<x<1.3, see paragraph 80) which reads on the claimed formula 4. Regarding claims 7, Seo further discloses a module containing the secondary battery (see casing 15 and 16 which form a module to house battery cell 12,13,14). Regarding claims 20-23, Seo further discloses the alkali metal- containing transition metal composite oxide is LiNiO2 (see paragraph 80). Regarding claims 10-17, Seo discloses that the concentration of the organic fluorinated ether compound is between 5-70wt% of the total weight of the electrolyte but does not explicitly disclose the exact claimed range of 20-50 volume% relative to the total solvent. Due to the large overlap of the two ranges (that disclosed and that claimed), even with the discrepancy between how the concentration is measured in Seo and in the claim, there exists an overlap in the claimed range. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)). Relevant Prior Art US 2018/0151911 – Discloses a secondary battery with a electrolyte containing the claimed ether (see paragraph 13) US 2016/0190646 – Discloses a secondary battery with an electrolyte containing the claimed ether (paragraph 84) US 2016/0190644 – Discloses a secondary battery with an electrolyte containing the claimed ether (paragraph 82) US 2016/0149265 - Discloses a secondary battery with an electrolyte containing the claimed ether (see claim 14) Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7-17 and 20-23 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. It is also noted that the new grounds of rejection are a result of the newly amended claims which further limit, and add clarity, to the claimed amount of fluorinated chain carbonate in the electrolyte solution. 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 MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm. 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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. /MATTHEW J MERKLING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 03, 2021
Application Filed
Apr 30, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 02, 2024
Response Filed
Aug 26, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 29, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 02, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 19, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 20, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 17, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 13, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 13, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 20, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 28, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 10, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jul 07, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 15, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 14, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 20, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599885
METHODS OF PNEUMATIC CARBON REMOVAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603294
LITHIUM-ION SUPPLY ELECTRODE FOR REAL-TIME MICROSCOPIC ANALYSIS AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595177
CARBONACEOUS MATERIAL FOR ELECTROCHEMICAL DEVICE, PRODUCTION METHOD THEREFOR, NEGATIVE ELECTRODE FOR ELECTROCHEMICAL DEVICE, AND ELECTROCHEMICAL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597638
SOLID ELECTROLYTE MEMBRANE, ALL-SOLID-STATE BATTERY USING THE SAME AND METHODS OF MANUFACTURING THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12586808
Apparatus and Method for Manufacturing Unit Cells
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+13.3%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1253 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