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, 4-9, 11, and 12 are pending.
Claims 2, 3, and 10 are cancelled.
Claims 7 and 8 are withdrawn.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on April 10th, 2026 has been fully considered, but does not place the Application in condition for allowance.
Status of Pending Objections and Rejections since the Office Action of January 12th, 2026
The 103 rejections of claims 1, 4-6, 9, 11, and 12 over Sato (US 2018/0183099 A1) and further in view of Moon (KR 20200104772 A) are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed April 10th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Sato broadly discloses phosphinoamine-based compounds, but not the specific compound claimed in the amended claim 1. However, Sato’s disclosure includes the possibility of R1 and R2 being hydrogen atoms [0053]. Therefore, that argument is unpersuasive.
The Applicant argues that the weight range disclosed by Sato in view of Moon is too broad, but that argument has been addressed on the record in a previous Office Action. Therefore, that discussion will not be repeated here.
In response to applicant's argument that neither Sato nor moon recognizes the "weight ratio of the auxiliary additive to the additive" as a design parameter, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Furthermore, the rejection is based on the combination of the two references, not the references individually.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 2018/0183099 A1) and further in view of Moon (KR 20200104772 A). The combination of the two will be referred to as modified Sato.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 5, and 9, Sato discloses an electrolyte solution comprising an organic solvent [0064], a lithium salt [0065], and a compound represented by Formula 1 (abstract, [0056], and [0058]). For clarity, the claimed structure and the structure disclosed by Sato are included below.
Claimed structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
140
171
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sato’s Formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
490
590
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sato discloses that both R1 and R2 may be halogens, such as fluorine [0058]. Sato continues to disclose that R3 and R4 may be hydrogen or an alkyl group [0053]
Sato fails to teach an electrolyte comprising an auxiliary additive (as required by claim 1) or an auxiliary additive comprising a fluorine-containing carbonate-based compound (as required by claims 4 and 5). Moon is analogous art to Sato because both teach additives for electrolytic solutions for lithium secondary batteries. Moon teaches that an electrolyte for a battery “may further include fluoroethylene carbonate” (Moon, page 14, third paragraph; required by claims 4 and 5). Moon continues to teach that the inclusion of fluoroethylene carbonate may contribute “to the formation of [a] negative electrode film” and “the performance of the electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery becomes more excellent” (Moon, page 14, fourth paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to add fluoroethylene carbonate (as taught by Moon) to the electrolytic solution disclosed by Sato to form a film on the negative electrode and improve the performance of a lithium secondary battery.
Sato also fails to teach the wt.% of the added fluoroethylene carbonate, but Moon teaches that its concentration may be “3 to 5 parts by weight based on the total 100 parts by weight of the lithium secondary battery electrolyte” (Moon, page 14, fifth paragraph). This range overlaps with the range of 1 wt.% to 5 wt.% recited in claim 9. 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). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Sato also fails to explicitly teach a weight ratio of the fluoroethylene carbonate relative to the main additive in the electrolyte solution. However, as described above, Sato discloses that their compound is present in the electrolytic solution by 0.01 wt.% to 2.0 wt.%. Moon teaches that the auxiliary additive, the fluoroethylene carbonate, is present by 3 wt.% to 5 wt.% in the electrolytic solution. An example of a pair of their parts by weight (with respect to 100 parts by weight of the total electrolyte solution) of fluoroethylene carbonate and Sato’s compound may be 5 and 2, respectively. This leads to a weight ratio of the auxiliary additive relative to Sato’s additive of 2.5, which is between the claimed range of 1 to 5. Therefore, Sato, modified by Moon, teaches ranges of the weights that result in an overlap of the claimed range of ratios of the additives’ parts by weight. 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). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Furthermore, given the ranges disclosed by Sato and Moon, it would be well within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the claimed range of the ratio of the additives’ weight percentages through routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 6, fluoroethylene carbonate contains a ring structure, as seen below:
PNG
media_image3.png
503
527
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Sato teaches that the “content of the phosphinoamine-based compound in the non-aqueous electrolytic solution is preferably …0.01 mass% or more and 2.0 mass% or less…” [0062]. This range overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 wt.% to 2 wt.%. 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). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 12, modified Sato teaches a battery ‘in which a positive electrode and negative electrode are disposed to face each other and an electrolytic solution [understood to contain the organic solvent, lithium salt, and additive described above] are enclosed within a casing” (Sato, [0072]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Amereller (US 2015/0030939 A1) states that fluoroethylene carbonate can improve that long-term stability of a battery cell [0023] when it is used in an electrolyte [0024] at a weight percent that is similar to what is recited in claim 9 (0.1% - 10%, [0024]).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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.
/R.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights