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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/06/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (KR20190059256A; US20200251777A1 is used as an English equivalent) in view of Kamizori (US20160020494A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lim discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery comprising [0013, Lim]: a lithium salt selected from the group consisting of LiPF6, LiClO4, LiBF4, lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, lithium bis(pentafluoroethanesulfonyl)imide, LiSO3CF3, lithium bis(oxalate)borate, lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate, lithium difluoro(bisoxalato) phosphate, lithium tetrafluoro(oxalate) phosphate, and a combination thereof [0014, 0042, Lim]; an organic solvent [0015, Lim]; a compound represented by Formula 1A below as a first additive [0022 (Formula 1a), Lim]; lithium difluorophosphate as a second additive [0088, Lim], and prop-1-ene-1,3-sultone as a fourth additive [0080, Lim discloses that sultone-based additives may be added including 1,3-propene sultone (which is equivalent to prop-1-ene-1,3-sultone)] wherein, in Formula 1A, R1 to R3 are each independently hydrogen, or a C1-C3 alkyl group [0022 (Formula 1a), Lim], and L1 is a C1-C3 alkylene group [0022 (Formula 1a), Lim].
PNG
media_image1.png
265
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure of Formula 1a from Lim
In regards to the limitation “and optionally at least one of vinylene carbonate or 1,3-propane sultone as a fifth additive”. The examiner notes that as this is optional the limitation is not required to be rejected as it is not required to be present. However, in the interest of compact prosecution the examiner notes that Lim teaches this [0080, 0086, Lim discloses that 1,3-propane sultone and vinylene carbonate may be used as additives].
Lim further discloses wherein the first additive is included in an amount of 0.1 wt% to 1 wt% based on a total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte [0024, Lim discloses using the first additive in a range of 0.01-11.5 wt%, which overlaps with the applicants claimed range], the second additive is included in an amount of 0.1 wt% to 1.5 wt% based on the total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte [0088, Lim discloses adding lithium fluorophosphate as an additive in an amount of 3 wt% or less, which overlaps with the applicants claimed range], and the third additive is included in an amount of 1 wt% to 5 wt% based on the total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte [0083, Lim discloses adding a fluorinated-substituted carbonate as an additive in an amount of 5wt% or less, which overlaps with the applicants claimed range.], and the fourth additive is included in an amount of 0.1 to 1 wt% based on the total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte [0080, Lim discloses that the sultone-based additives may be present in an amount of 0.3-5 wt%, which overlaps with the applicants claimed range].
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." (see MPEP 2144.05)].
Finally Lim teaches that the organic solvent includes a carbonate [0057, Lim].
Lim discloses that a halogen-substituted carbonate based compound, such as fluoroethylene carbonate, may be used as an additive [0079, Lim]. But is silent to it being the structure of Formula 2.
However, Kamizori discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte containing for a lithium ion battery in which halogen-substituted carbonate compounds such as fluoroethylene carbonate or trifluoroethyl methyl carbonate, may be used [0094, Kamizori].
Trifluoroethyl methyl carbonate reads on the compound represented by Formula 2 below as an additive and
[Formula 2]
PNG
media_image2.png
101
305
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein, in Formula 2, L2 is a single bond or a methylene group, R4 is a C1 or C2 alkyl group substituted with at least one fluorine, and R5 is a methyl group or an ethyl group alkyl group.
PNG
media_image3.png
672
1081
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure of Trifluoroethyl methyl carbonate
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Lim such that the halogen-substituted carbonate additive was the Trifluoroethyl methyl carbonate disclosed by Kamizori. Doing so would provide an additive that is capable to improving charge/discharge cycle characteristics and enhancing safety such as high-temperature storage characteristic and overcharge prevention, as taught by Kamizori ([0094]).
Regarding claim 3, Lim as modified above discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery, wherein the compound represented by Formula 1 is propargyl 1H-imidazole-l-carboxylate [0022 (Formula 1a), Lim].
Regarding claim 5, Lim as modified above discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte for a lithium ion battery, wherein the compound represented by Formula 2 is methyl 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl carbonate [0094, Kamizori discloses using trifluoroethyl methyl carbonate which is equivalent to methyl 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl carbonate].
Regarding claim 12, Lim as modified above discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte for a lithium ion battery, wherein the organic solvent comprises a cyclic carbonate-based solvent and a linear carbonate-based solvent [0046, Lim].
Regarding claim 13, Lim as modified above discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising: a positive electrode including a positive electrode active material [0098, 0130, Lim]; a negative electrode including a negative electrode active material [0109, 0131, Lim]; a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode [0122, 0132 Lim]; and the non-aqueous electrolyte solution [0132, Lim].
Regarding claim 14, Lim as modified above discloses the lithium secondary battery, wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium composite transition metal oxide represented by Formula 3 below [0100-0101, Lim]: [Formula 3] Li (NiaCobMncMd)O2 wherein, in Formula 3, M is W, Cu, Fe, V, Cr, Ti, Zr, Zn, Al, In, Ta, Y, La, Sr, Ga, Sc, Gd, Sm, Ca, Ce, Nb, Mg, B, or Mo, and a, b, c, and d are atomic fractions of each independent elements, which satisfy 0.5≤a<1, 0<b≤0.3, 0<c≤0.3, 0≤d≤0.05, and a+b+c+d=1 [0100-0101, Lim].
Regarding claim 15, Lim as modified above discloses the lithium secondary battery, wherein a, b, c, and d in Formula 3 are 0.70≤a≤0.95, 0.025≤b≤0.20, 0.025≤c≤0.20 and 0≤d≤0.03, respectively [0101, Lim].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for additional details.
Applicant argues the use of Lim requiring an easter. But they additionally teach of using a carbonate as an organic solvent. This reads on the applicant’s claimed limitation.
Applicant then argues the lithium salts of Mu and Kim. However, these are not relied upon for the rejection of claim 1. As such, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The examiner maintains their rejection
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (12/10/25) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art discloses using the first, second, fourth and fifth additives in concentrations that overlap with the applicant’s claimed range.
CN 111244546 A (Mu)
US 2022140391 A1 (Kim)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached on 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights