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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/09/2025 has been entered.
Response to Remarks
The amendments and remarks filed on 12/09/2025 have been fully considered. The arguments were persuasive with respect to the prior U.S.C. 102 rejection, which is hereby withdrawn. However, upon further consideration of the applied prior art, claims 1–2 and 8–13 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as set forth below. See claims 1-2 and 8-13 rejections below.
Summary
This is a continued examination non-final office action for application 17/700,711 in response to the amendments filed on 12/09/2025. Claims 1-2 and 8-13 are under examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2021-0037733 filed on 03/24/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS)s submitted on 03/22/2022, 09/14/2022 and 11/06/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oya et al. (US-20130230770-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Oya discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte solution (see e.g. "a non-aqueous electrolyte" in paragraph [0012]) for a lithium secondary battery (see e.g. "A non-aqueous secondary battery" in paragraph [0012]) comprising:
a lithium salt (see e.g. "lithium salt" in paragraph [0062]);
an organic solvent (see e.g. "an organic solvent" in paragraph [0062]);
a first additive (see e.g. "nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compound C" in paragraph [0062]) represented by 2-amino-1,3-imidazole (see e.g. "Examples of the nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compound C include... 2-amino-1,3-imidazole" in paragraph [0090] and PubChem image of 2-amino-1,3-imidazole below); and
a second additive selected from vinylene carbonate (see e.g. "Also it is possible to suitably add to the non-aqueous electrolyte an additive such as vinylene carbonates" in paragraph [0113]),
the first additive is included in an amount of 0.01 wt% to 3 wt% based on a total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution (see e.g. " compound C in the non-aqueous electrolyte used for the battery is not less than 0.01 mass %... compound C in the non-aqueous electrolyte to be used for the battery is not more than 3 mass %" in paragraph [0095])), and
the second additive is included in an amount of 1 wt% based on the total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution (see e.g. "vinylene carbonate to be 1 mass % was mixed" in paragraph [0180).
Oya discloses a range that overlaps with and a point that lies within the ranges claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range which overlaps with or a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Oya does not explicitly disclose that a weight ratio of the first additive and the second additive is 1:0.2 to 1:1.5. Oya, however, does disclose that the first additive is included in an amount of 0.01 wt% to 3 wt% based on a total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution (see e.g. " compound C in the non-aqueous electrolyte used for the battery is not less than 0.01 mass %... compound C in the non-aqueous electrolyte to be used for the battery is not more than 3 mass %" in paragraph [0095])), and the second additive is included in an amount of 1 wt% based on the total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution (see e.g. "vinylene carbonate to be 1 mass % was mixed" in paragraph [0180]). From this it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that if the amount of the first additive was chosen to be 1 wt% the weight ratio of the first additive and the second additive would be 1:1.
PNG
media_image1.png
116
149
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(PubChem, 2-amino-1,3-imidazole)
Regarding Claim 2, Oya discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte solution of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Oya further discloses that R1 and R2 are each hydrogen (see e.g. "Examples of the nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compound C include... 2-amino-1,3-imidazole" in paragraph [0090] and PubChem image of 2-amino-1,3-imidazole below).
PNG
media_image1.png
116
149
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(PubChem, 2-amino-1,3-imidazole)
Regarding Claim 8, Oya discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte solution of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Oya does not explicitly disclose that a weight ratio of the first additive and the second additive is 1:0.5 to 1:1.
Oya, however, does disclose that the first additive is included in an amount of 0.01 wt% to 3 wt% based on a total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution (see e.g. " compound C in the non-aqueous electrolyte used for the battery is not less than 0.01 mass %... compound C in the non-aqueous electrolyte to be used for the battery is not more than 3 mass %" in paragraph [0095])), and the second additive is included in an amount of 1 wt% based on the total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution (see e.g. "vinylene carbonate to be 1 mass % was mixed" in paragraph [0180]). From this it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that if the amount of the first additive was chosen to be 1 wt% the weight ratio of the first additive and the second additive would be 1:1.
Regarding Claim 9, Oya discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte solution of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Oya further discloses that a concentration of the lithium salt is 1.0 M (see e.g. "LiPF6 was dissolved at a concentration of 1 mol/L" in paragraph [0180]).
Oya discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 10, Oya discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte solution of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Oya further discloses that the organic solvent comprises a cyclic carbonate-based solvent and a linear carbonate-based solvent (see e.g. " mixed solvent of EC, MEC and DEC at a volume ratio of 1:1:3" in paragraph [0180]; EC is ethylene carbonate which is a cyclic carbonate-based solvent, MEC is methyl ethyl carbonate which is a linear carbonate-based solvent and DEC is diethyl carbonate which is a linear carbonate-based solvent).
Regarding Claim 11, Oya discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte solution of claim 10 (see e.g. claim 10 rejection above).
Oya further discloses that a volume ratio of the cyclic carbonate-based solvent and the linear carbonate-based solvent is 1:4 (2:8) (see e.g. " mixed solvent of EC, MEC and DEC at a volume ratio of 1:1:3," in paragraph [0180]; EC is a cyclic carbonate-based solvent and MEC and DEC are linear carbonate-based solvents, the total volume ratio between the types therefore becomes 1:4).
Oya discloses a point that lies on the endpoint of the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point on the endpoint of the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 12, Oya discloses a lithium secondary battery (see e.g. "non-aqueous secondary battery" in paragraph [0012]) comprising:
a positive electrode including a positive electrode active material (see e.g. "a positive electrode... the positive electrode includes a lithium-containing composite oxide as a positive electrode active material" in paragraph [0012]);
a negative electrode including a negative electrode active material (see e.g. "a negative electrode" in paragraph [0012] and "negative electrode active material" in paragraph [0115]);
a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (see e.g. " separator 3" in paragraph [0185] and part number 3in FIG. 1B); and
the non-aqueous electrolyte solution (see e.g. "a non-aqueous electrolyte" in paragraph [0185]) of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection below). Regarding Claim 13, Oya discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 12 (see e.g. claim 12 rejection above).
Oya further discloses that the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium composite transition metal oxide represented by Li1.00Fe0.988Mg0.1Ti0.002PO4 (see e.g. " Li1.00Fe0.988Mg0.1Ti0.002PO4" in paragraph [0208]). This corresponds directly with claimed formula 3, if M' is Mg and Ti and e = 1.002 this corresponds to Li1.00Fe0.988Mg0.1Ti0.002PO4 which is the same species disclosed by the prior art.
Oya discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 pm EST.
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, TONG GUO can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/J.J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TONG GUO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723