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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 & 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muldoon (US20110008680) (Provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on April 25th, 2022).
Regarding Claim 1-4, Muldoon discloses an additive for an electrolyte ([005]).
Muldoon discloses wherein the additive can be represented by the formula R1-SO2-NR2-OR3 ([005]). Muldoon further discloses wherein R1 and R2 and R3 be selected from alkanes, alkenes, alkynes, arlys and their substituted derivates ([005-006], [0011-0012]). Muldoon further discloses wherein the listed groups for R1-3 can have 1 to 5 carbons ([0011]). Muldoon further discloses wherein R3 can be a branched alkyl ([0011]).
Applicant adds to Claim 1 that “wherein "substituted" refers to replacement of hydrogen of a compound by a substituent selected from a halogen atom (F, Br, Cl, or I), a hydroxy group, a nitro group, acyano group, an amino group, an azido group, an amidino group, a hydrazino group, a hydrazono group, a carbonyl group, a carbamyl group, a thiol group, an ester group, a carboxyl group or a salt thereof, a sulfonic acid group or a salt thereof, a phosphoric acid group or a salt thereof, a C1 to C20 alkyl group, a C2 to C20 alkenyl group, a C2 to C20 alkynyl group, a C6 to C30 aryl group, a C7 to C30 arylalkyl group, a C1 to C20 heteroalkyl group, a C3 to C20 heteroarylalkyl group, a C3 to C30 cycloalkyl group, a C3 to C15 cycloalkenyl group, a C6 to C15 cycloalkynyl group, a C2 to C20 heterocycloalkyl group, and a combination thereof.”
The examiner notes that by applicant’s definition, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, that an unsubstituted chemical group would maintain hydrogen bonds on open carbon bonds on the overall carbon chain.
The examiner notes that using Muldoon’s formula, and inputting Muldoon’s R1 and R2 with alkyl groups, and inputting Muldoon’s R3 with a substituted alkene, that instant Chemical Formula 1 would be achieved wherein L is a single bond, R1 and R2 are substituted or unsubstituted alkyl groups, and R3 is a unsubstituted C1 to C5 alkyl group.
Therefore it is the examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Muldoon can achieve the chemical formula 1 and chemical formula 1A.
Regarding Claim 5, Muldoon discloses the limitations as set forth above. Muldoon further discloses an electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery ([0011]), the additive comprising; a non-aqueous organic solvent ([0011]), a lithium salt ([0013]), and the additive of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 8, Muldoon discloses the limitations as set forth above. Muldoon discloses a lithium secondary battery ([0021], [1922]), comprising:
A positive electrode including a positive active material ([1972]);
A negative electrode including a negative active material ([1924]);
And the electrolyte of claim 5 (see claim 5 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 9, Muldoon discloses the limitations as set forth above. Muldoon further discloses wherein the positive active material is represented by Chemical Formula 4: Lix1M11-y1-z1M2y1M3z1O2, wherein 0.9 ≤ x1 ≤ 1.8, 0 ≤ y1 ≤ 1, 0 ≤ z1 ≤ 1, 0 ≤ y1+z1 < 1, and M1, M2, and M3 are each independently selected from Ni, Co, Mn, Al, Sr, Mg, La and a combination thereof (the positive electrode active material can be various lithium transition metal oxides that meet the chemical formula 4, [1972-1974]).
Regarding Claim 10, Muldoon discloses the limitations as set forth above. Muldoon further discloses wherein the positive active material is represented by chemical formula 5: Lix2Ni--y2Coz2Al1-y2-z2O2 wherein, in Chemical Formula 5, 1 ≤ x2 ≤ 1.2, 0.6 ≤ y2 ≤ 1, and 0 ≤ z2 ≤ 0.5 (positive active material can be LiNi0.85Co0.1Al0.05O2, [1974]).
Claim(s) 6 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muldoon (US20110008680) in view of Shima (US20130337317) (Provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on April 25th, 2022).
Regarding Claim 6 & 7, Muldoon discloses the limitations as set forth above. Muldoon does not directly disclose wherein the additive is included in an amount of 0.05 wt% to 5.0 wt% or 0.1 wt% to 3.0 wt% based on the total weight of the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery.
Shima discloses an electrolyte additive that contains a sulfone and nitrile group (Chemical formula 1 or chemical formula 2,[0011-17]). Shima further discloses wherein the additive is present in the electrolyte is an amount of 0.001 mass% or more and 10 mass % or less ([0019]), which overlaps the instant claim range of 0.05 wt% to 5.0 wt% and 0.1 wt% to 3.0 wt%. Shima discloses that this range allows for improved charge and discharge characteristics ([0023]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Muldoon with the teachings of Shima to have wherein the additive is included in an amount of 0.05 wt% to 5.0 wt% or 0.1 wt% to 3.0 wt% based on the total weight of the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery. This modified structure would yield the expected result of improved charge and discharge characteristics.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 17th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Muldoon discloses wherein the additive can be represented by the formula R1-SO2-NR2-OR3 ([005]). Muldoon further discloses wherein R1 and R2 and R3 be selected from alkanes, alkenes, alkynes, aryls and their substituted derivates ([005-006], [0011-0012]). Muldoon further discloses wherein the listed groups for R1-3 can have 1 to 5 carbons ([0011]). Muldoon further discloses wherein R3 can be a branched alkyl ([0011]).
The examiner notes that using Muldoon’s formula, and inputting Muldoon’s R1 and R2 with alkyl groups, and inputting Muldoon’s R3 with a substituted alkene, that instant Chemical Formula 1 would be achieved wherein L is a single bond, R1 and R2 are unsubstituted alkyl groups, and R3 is a C1 to C5 alkyl group.
Applicant argues Muldoon fails to teach or suggest an additive corresponding to chemical Formula 1 as presently recited in the instant claim 1.
Applicant argues that Muldoon requires a sulfonamide group to be directly bonded to an OR3 moitey wherein R3 is selected from alkanes, alkenes, alkynes, aryls and their substituted derivatives.
The examiner notes that the OR3 “moiety” as referred to by the applicant creates the overall ketone structure of the instant application when R3- is a branched alkyl. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope of the claim language.
Furthermore, Applicant amends claim 1 to redefine “substituted” to require the substitution of hydrogen with a list of recited chemical groups. The examiner notes that by applicant’s definition, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, that an unsubstituted chemical group would maintain hydrogen bonds on open carbon bonds on the overall carbon chain. The examiner notes that the branched alkyl group with the oxygen bond as disclosed above (Muldoon further discloses wherein R3 can be a branched alkyl, [0011]) would provide an unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkyl group for instant R3. Therefore applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope of the claim language.
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 ANKITH R SRIPATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 am - 5:00pm.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/ANKITH R SRIPATHI/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights