DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the April 28th, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”). The
text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior
Office 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/06/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received on April 28th, 2026:
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 11-16, 19 and 21-22 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 13, and 15 are amended. Claims 3, 8-10, 17-18, and 20 are cancelled. Claims 21-22 are newly added.
Claims 1 and 13 are amended to further limit:
the solvent to include at least one non-fluorinated acyclic carbonate, the fluorinated acyclic carbonate to methyl 2,2-difluoroethyl carbonate,
methyl 2,2,2-trifluoroethyle carbonate, and mixtures thereof,
the fluorinated cyclic carbonate compound to 4-fluorethylene carbonate,
the content of the fluorinated cyclic carbonate compound in the electrolyte composition to 2 wt.% to 5 wt.%.
Claim 15 is amended to adjust dependency from Claim 10 to Claim 1.
Claim 21 is newly added to further limit the content of the fluorinated acyclic carbonate compound to 2 wt.% to 50 wt.% based on the total weight of the electrolyte.
Claim 22 is newly added to:
presumably further limit the content of the non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate and the non-fluorinated acyclic carbonate in the solvent of Claim 1; however, there are inconsistencies between the claim language and the specification (see rejection under 112(b) below),
further limit the content of the fluorinated acyclic carbonate compound to 2 wt.% to 5 wt.% or from 20 wt.% to 50 wt.% based on the total weight of the electrolyte.
Applicant’s amendment to Claims 1, 13, 15, and 21 find support in the originally filed claims and/or specification. However, support is not clearly found for each and every limitation of Claim 22 (see rejection under 112(b) below).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as described below:
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 107251307 A) in view of Koh et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20130224606 A1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed April 28th, 2026 have been fully considered and are deemed unpersuasive as further described below:
Applicant further limits Claims 1 and 13 to be more consistent with the evidence provided in the declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed December 18th, 2025. Applicant further limits the fluorinated acyclic carbonate compound, the fluorinated cyclic carbonate compound, and requiring at least one non-fluorinated acyclic carbonate in the solvent; and suggests that said amendment addresses the Examiner’s concerns and renders the declaration commensurate with the scope of the claims (pg. 7-8 of the “Remarks”). Applicant’s arguments or explanation presented on pages 8-11 of the “Remarks” are in relation to the previously filed declaration; and said arguments were previously presented in the “Remarks” filed on 12/18/2025 and previously addressed by the examiner in the Non-Final Rejection dated 01/28/2026.
The examiner’s arguments provided in the Non-Final Rejection dated 01/28/2026 are maintained and further described below:
“An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979)” (emphasis in original) (see MPEP 716.02(e)).
“Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the ‘objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support’” (see MPEP 716.02(d)).
The Examiner acknowledges that the amendment has further limited the claim language to be more consistent with the evidence provided in the Declaration. However, the Declaration still remains incommensurate with the scope of the claims for purposes of establishing unexpected results. The experimental results provided in the Declaration include an electrolyte solution comprising particular compounds. The examples in Table 2 of the Declaration represent an electrolyte composition comprising EC (non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate), EMC or DEC (a non-fluorinated acyclic carbonate), DFEMC or TFEMC (a fluorinated acyclic carbonate), and FEC (a fluorinated cyclic carbonate), with or without LiFSI or Esa (para. 6). Example electrolytes EL1-EL3 correspond to the examples in Table 1 of applicant’s specification (para. 5). EL4-EL7 were designed to show the difference in cell performance based on the incorporation of LiFSI (para. 7). However, EL4-EL7 are tested in the form of coin cells with an Si/O anode and NCA cathode; whereas, EL1-EL3 representing the invention, are in the form of pouch cells with an Si/C anode and NCA cathode.
Therefore, sufficient evidence is not found to support unexpected results for an electrolyte composition comprising any non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate and any non-fluorinated acyclic carbonate as presented in Claim 1; test results are only provided for EC as the non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate and EMC/DEC as the non-fluorinated acyclic carbonate. “Evidence of superior properties in one species [is] insufficient to establish the nonobviousness of a subgenus containing hundreds of compounds” (see MPEP 2145). Further, the evidence of unexpected results does not support the broad ranges representing the content of each component as claimed. For example, Table 2 shows an amount of EC of about 27 to 30 wt.%, much more limiting than the claimed range of 8 to 50%. For the evidence and declaration to be commensurate with the scope of the claims, applicant should further limit the broad genus (ie., non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate, non-fluorinated acyclic carbonate, amount of said components) to the species in which unexpected results can be proved (ie., EC, EMC/DEC); further, the amount of said compounds should also be limited to be commensurate with the content in which unexpected results can be provided for.
As noted in the previous office action, there are also deficiencies in the filed declaration including: the declaration does not show direct or indirect comparison of the claimed subject matter to the closest prior art and establish the differences there between; applicant does not cite any prior art of record to clearly point out the features of the prior art that are different from the claimed invention and used in comparison (see MPEP 716.02(d)(II), 716.02(e)).
As the prior art references Kim et al. and Koh et al. teach all claim limitations including those newly presented as further described below, the amendment does not overcome the prior art of record. the Examiner recommends narrowing the claim language to support the evidence presented in the previously filed declaration and correcting the deficiencies of the declaration.
Cited Prior Art
Previously Cited Kim et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 107251307 A) (“Kim et al.”)
Previously Cited Koh et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20130224606 A1) (“Koh et al.”)
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 22 recites “wherein - the content of the non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate is from 10wt.% to 30wt.%, based on the total weight of the electrolyte; the content of the non-fluorinated acyclic carbonate is from 70wt.% to 90wt.%, based on the total weight of the electrolyte.” However, in Claim 1, applicant rather presents the content of the non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate in terms of vol.% based on the total volume of the solvent; and the non-fluorinated acyclic carbonate is presented as a component of the solvent. The recited claim language is not supported by the specification as the specification rather describes the content of the nonfluorinated cyclic carbonate and non-fluorinated acyclic carbonate in terms of vol.% (instead of wt.%) based on the total volume of the solvent (instead of the electrolyte) (see [0073]-[0074] of the published application). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 4 and 5 are dependent upon a cancelled claim (i.e., Claim 3). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
"A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970)" (see MPEP 2173.03).
There are inconsistencies between the language of Claim 22 and the specification. Claim 22 recites “wherein - the content of the non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate is from 10wt.% to 30wt.%, based on the total weight of the electrolyte; the content of the non-fluorinated acyclic carbonate is from 70wt.% to 90wt.%, based on the total weight of the electrolyte.” However, in Claim 1, applicant presents the content of the nonfluorinated cyclic carbonate in terms of vol.% based on the total volume of the solvent; and the non-fluorinated acyclic carbonate is also described as a component of the solvent. Also, the specification only provides support for said content of the nonfluorinated cyclic carbonate and non-fluorinated acyclic carbonate in terms of vol.% based on the total volume of the solvent (see [0073]-[0074] of the published application). It is unclear whether the content of said compounds are in volume or weight percentages; and if the contents are based on a total volume/weight of the solvent or the electrolyte. Therefore, Claim 22 is rendered indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
For examination purposes and consistent with the specification (see [0074] of the published application), Claim 22 is rather interpreted to recite, “wherein - the content of the non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate is from 10vol.% to 30vol.%, based on the total volume of the solvent; the content of the non-fluorinated acyclic carbonate is from 70vol.% to 90vol.%, based on the total volume of the solvent.”
Claims 4-5 are interpreted as dependent upon Claim 1 for examination purposes.
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, 11-16, 19 and 21-22 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 107251307 A) in view of Koh et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20130224606 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim et al. teaches a battery (electrochemical cell) comprising an anode, cathode, and an electrolyte composition (para. 6). The anode active material can include a silicon-carbon composite in which consists of at least a carbon material and a silicon material (para. 58). The electrolyte composition includes a solvent, a salt (electrolyte salt), and one or more additives (para. 6). The additive can include 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl methyl carbonate (methyl 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl carbonate) and 2,2-difluoroethyl methyl carbonate (methyl 2,2-difluoroethyl carbonate) (para. 33) in which are fluorinated acyclic carbonates (para. 33).
The additive can include a fluorinated cyclic carbonate compound such as monofluoroethylene carbonate also known as 4-fluoroethylene carbonate (para. 33). The content of the additive is in the amount of 0.1 to 10.0 wt.% relative to the total weight of the electrolyte composition (para. 33), overlapping the claimed ranges of 0.5 wt.% to 70 wt.% of a fluorinated acyclic carbonate compound and 2 wt.% to 5 wt.% of a fluorinated cyclic carbonate compound. 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 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Kim et al. to provide a battery with an electrolyte composition exhibiting advantageous functions such as providing a sufficiently low interfacial resistance between the electrode and electrolyte composition (para. 17).
Kim et al. does not teach the solvent comprising at least one non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate in an amount of from 8 to 50% by volume (vol%), the vol% being based on the total volume of the solvent; and the solvent comprising at least one non-fluorinated acyclic carbonate.
Koh et al. teaches an electrolyte solution comprising a non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate and a non-fluorinated chain carbonate ([0091]) in which the non-fluorinated chain carbonate can be ethyl methyl carbonate: EMC or dimethyl carbonate: DMC, equivalent to a non-fluorinated acyclic carbonate. Koh et al. teaches an electrolyte solution comprising an amount of the non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate in a preferable amount of 30 vol. % based on the total volume of the solvent (para. 96), within the claimed range of 8 to 50% by volume. Further, Koh et al. teaches the solvent compatibility decreasing when the non-aqueous electrolyte solution contains too large of an amount of non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate while solubility of the electrolyte salt decreases when too small of an amount is used; including the non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate in the amount described provides improved load characteristics and cycle characteristics of the lithium secondary battery (para. 96). Koh et al. teaches that the non-fluorinated acyclic carbonate (non-fluorinated chain carbonate) provides the electrolyte solution with better load characteristics attributed to low-temperature properties and decreased viscosity ([0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte composition of Kim et al. to include a solvent comprising the non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate in a preferable amount of 30 vol. % based on the total volume of the solvent, within the claimed range of 8 to 50% by volume; and the solvent further comprising a non-fluorinated acyclic carbonate as taught by Koh et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide improved load and cycle characteristics of the lithium secondary battery; and decreased viscosity of the electrolyte solution as taught by Koh et al.
Regarding Claim 2, Kim et al. is modified by Koh et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, the anode can be a silicon-carbon composite in which is equivalent to a Si/C composite material as claimed (para. 58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Kim et al. to provide a battery with an electrolyte composition exhibiting advantageous functions such as providing a sufficiently low interfacial resistance between the electrode and electrolyte composition (para. 17).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim et al. is modified by Koh et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 3 above. As applied to Claim 1, Kim et al. teaches the fluorinated acyclic carbonate comprising 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl methyl carbonate (methyl 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl carbonate) (para. 33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the additive specified by Kim et al. to provide an electrolyte composition for high voltage batteries with advantageous functions such as exhibiting a sufficiently low interfacial resistance (para. 17).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim et al. is modified by Koh et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, Kim et al. teaches the additive comprising a fluorinated acyclic carbonate such as 2,2-difluoroethyl methyl carbonate (methyl 2,2-difluoroethyl carbonate) (para. 33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the additive specified by Kim et al. to provide an electrolyte composition for high voltage batteries with advantageous functions such as exhibiting a sufficiently low interfacial resistance (para. 17).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim et al. is modified by Koh et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, Kim et al. teaches the content of the additive in which can be a fluorinated acyclic carbonate compound ranging from 0.1 to 10 wt.% based on the total weight of the electrolyte composition (para. 33), overlapping the claimed range of 0.5 wt.% to 10 wt.% (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the additive content specified by Kim et al. to provide an electrolyte composition for high voltage batteries with advantageous functions such as exhibiting a sufficiently low interfacial resistance (para. 17).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim et al. is modified by Koh et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, Kim et al. teaches the additive comprising a fluorinated cyclic carbonate such as monofluoroethylene carbonate in which is also known as 4-fluoroethylene carbonate (para. 33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the additive specified by Kim et al. to provide an electrolyte composition for high voltage batteries with advantageous functions such as exhibiting a sufficiently low interfacial resistance (para. 17).
Regarding Claim 11, Kim et al. is modified by Koh et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Kim et al. teaches the electrolyte composition comprising an additive such as 1,3-propane sultone in which is a cyclic sultone (para. 33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the additive specified by Kim et al. to provide an electrolyte composition for high voltage batteries with advantageous functions such as exhibiting a sufficiently low interfacial resistance (para. 17).
Regarding Claim 12, Kim et al. is modified by Koh et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Kim et al. teaches the electrolyte composition being advantageously used in batteries including high-voltage batteries and capacitors such as supercapacitor and hybrid capacitors in which are energy storage devices (para. 79-81). Kim et al. further teaches electronic devices such as cell phones comprising at least one battery in which it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the battery containing the electrochemical cell as described in an electronic device (para. 28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the electrochemical cell comprising the electrolyte composition specified by Kim et al. in high voltage batteries to provide advantageous functions such as exhibiting a sufficiently low interfacial resistance (para. 17).
Regarding Claim 13, Kim et al. teaches a method of improving cycle performance at high voltage operations of an electrochemical cell (para.114) comprising an anode, cathode, and an electrolyte composition (para. 6), wherein the anode active material can be a silicon-carbon composite (comprising at least a carbon material and a silicon material) (para. 58), and the method comprising the addition of an additive to an electrolyte system (para. 84). The electrolyte composition can comprise one or more additives (para. 6). The additive can include 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl methyl carbonate (methyl 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl carbonate) and 2,2-difluoroethyl methyl carbonate (methyl 2,2-difluoroethyl carbonate) (para. 33) in which are fluorinated acyclic carbonates (para. 33). The content of the additive is in the amount of 0.1 to 10.0 wt.% relative to the total weight of the electrolyte composition (para. 33), overlapping and within the claimed range of 0.5 wt.% to 70 wt. % of a fluorinated acyclic carbonate compound (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). The additive can comprise a fluorinated cyclic carbonate compound present in the amount of 0.1 to 10 wt.% relative to the total weight of the electrolyte composition (para. 33), overlapping the claimed range of 2 wt.% to 5 wt.% (see MPEP § 2144.05, I).
Kim et al. does not teach the solvent comprising at least one non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate in an amount of from 8 to 50% by volume (vol%), the vol% being based on the total volume of the solvent; and the solvent comprising at least one non-fluorinated acyclic carbonate.
Koh et al. teaches an electrolyte solution comprising a non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate and a non-fluorinated chain carbonate ([0091]) in which the non-fluorinated chain carbonate can be ethyl methyl carbonate: EMC or dimethyl carbonate: DMC, equivalent to a non-fluorinated acyclic carbonate. Koh et al. teaches an electrolyte solution comprising an amount of the non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate in a preferable amount of 30 vol. % based on the total volume of the solvent (para. 96), within the claimed range of 8 to 50% by volume. Further, Koh et al. teaches the solvent compatibility decreasing when the non-aqueous electrolyte solution contains too large of an amount of non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate while solubility of the electrolyte salt decreases when too small of an amount is used; including the non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate in the amount described provides improved load characteristics and cycle characteristics of the lithium secondary battery (para. 96). Koh et al. teaches that the non-fluorinated acyclic carbonate (non-fluorinated chain carbonate) provides the electrolyte solution with better load characteristics attributed to low-temperature properties and decreased viscosity ([0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte composition of Kim et al. to include a solvent comprising the non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate in a preferable amount of 30 vol. % based on the total volume of the solvent, within the claimed range of 8 to 50% by volume; and the solvent further comprising a non-fluorinated acyclic carbonate as taught by Koh et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide improved load and cycle characteristics of the lithium secondary battery; and decreased viscosity of the electrolyte solution as taught by Koh et al.
Regarding Claim 14, Kim et al. is modified by Koh et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Kim et al. teaches a non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate such as propylene carbonate (para. 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the additive specified by Kim et al. to provide an electrolyte composition for high voltage batteries with advantageous functions such as exhibiting a sufficiently low interfacial resistance (para. 17).
Regarding Claim 15, Kim et al. is modified by Koh et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 10 above. As applied to Claim 10, Kim et al. teaches a non-fluorinated acyclic carbonate such as dimethyl carbonate (para. 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the additive specified by Kim et al. to provide an electrolyte composition for high voltage batteries with advantageous functions such as exhibiting a sufficiently low interfacial resistance (para. 17).
Regarding Claim 16, Kim et al. is modified by Koh et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 6 above. As applied to Claim 6, Kim et al. teaches the content of the fluorinated acyclic carbonate compound from 0.1 to 10 wt.% based on the total weight of the electrolyte composition (para. 33), overlapping the claimed range of 2 wt.% to 5 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 (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the additive content specified by Kim et al. to provide an electrolyte composition for high voltage batteries with advantageous functions such as exhibiting a sufficiently low interfacial resistance (para. 17).
Regarding Claim 19, Kim et al. is modified by Koh et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Kim et al. further teaches the electrolyte salt including LiPF6 (lithium hexafluorophosphate) (para. 31). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the teachings of Kim et al. to provide a battery with an electrolyte composition exhibiting advantageous functions such as providing a sufficiently low interfacial resistance between the electrode and electrolyte composition (para. 17).
Regarding Claim 21, Kim et al. is modified by Koh et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, Kim et al. teaches a content of the fluorinated acyclic carbonate compound ranging from 0.1 to 10 wt.% based on the total weight of the electrolyte composition (para. 33), within and overlapping the claimed range of 2 wt.% to 50 wt.% (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the additive content specified by Kim et al. to provide an electrolyte composition for high voltage batteries with advantageous functions such as exhibiting a sufficiently low interfacial resistance (para. 17).
Regarding Claim 22, Kim et al. is modified by Koh et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, the electrolyte composition of Kim et al. is modified by Koh et al. wherein the solvent comprises the non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate in a preferable amount of 30 vol.% based on the total volume of the solvent, meeting the limits of the claimed range of 10 to 30% by volume (see Claim Interpretation above); and the solvent further comprises a non-fluorinated acyclic carbonate. As applied to Claim 1, Kim et al. teaches a content of the fluorinated acyclic carbonate compound of 0.1 to 10.0 wt.% relative to the total weight of the electrolyte (para. 33), overlapping the claimed range of 2 wt.% to 5 wt.% (see MPEP § 2144.05, I).
Kim et al. does not teach that the solvent comprises a content of the non-fluorinated acyclic carbonate from 70vol.% to 90vol.%, based on the total volume of the solvent.
Koh et al. further teaches a content of the non-fluorinated acyclic carbonate (non-fluorinated chain carbonate, i.e., DMC/EMC, [0094]) of more preferably 89.9 vol% based on the total volume of the solvent. Koh et al. teaches that an electrolyte solution comprising said compound can achieve effects of better load characteristics attributed to low-temperature properties and decreased viscosity ([0095]); and the disclosed amount is preferable in terms of viscosity and dielectric constant ([0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrolyte composition of Kim et al. wherein the solvent comprises a content of the non-fluorinated acyclic carbonate in an amount of 89.9 vol% as taught by Koh et al., within the claimed range of 70vol.% to 90vol.%, based on the total volume of the solvent. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide improved load and cycle characteristics of the lithium secondary battery; and decreased viscosity of the electrolyte solution as taught by Koh et al.
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 CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, ULA RUDDOCK can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights