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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 19th, 2025, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received in the Remarks on November 19th, 2025:
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9=12 are pending in the current application, claim 1 has been amended and claims 5 and 8 have been cancelled.
Claim 1 has been amended to include “wherein the sultone-based compound comprises an alkyl sultone-based compound and an alkenyl sultone-based compound” and “wherein a weight ratio of a weight of the second additive relative to a weight of the first additive in the electrolyte solution is from 1 to 10”.
Claim 5 has been cancelled.
Claim 8 has been cancelled.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending from the Office Action of August 22nd, 2025:
The previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 103 have been upheld in view of the amendment and remarks filed on November 19th, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed November 19th, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claim 1, under Lim and Kim have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lim (previously on the record), Kim (previously on the record) and Kwak et al, US 20200185774 A1.
Kwak et al teaches an electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery, which further stabilizes a cathode structure during storage at a high temperature [Kwak, 0016], that teaches electrolyte solutions comprising and alkyl sultone-based compound, an alkenyl sultone-based compound and a sulfate based compound.
Applicant argues claim 1 of the present application does not include a vinylidene carbonate-based compound (VC-based) and a lithium bis(oxalate)borate (LiBOB), but includes a fluorine-containing carbonate-based compounds (e.g., FEC), and that Lim discloses FEC as an additive, which exhibits an action similar to that of VC-based compounds and LiBOB, and merely discloses that one or more of these additives may be selected, and in the specific embodiment, FEC is not used. Further, that Kim discloses FEC as an electrolyte additive however, only to be selected from a group further comprising a VC-based compounds and LiBOB.
In response to applicant argument, Examiner notes that applicant claims the fluorine-containing carbonate-based compounds as a component of the second additive, and further that Lim teaches the use of a halogen-substituted carbonate based compound, fluorine is an element that belongs to the halogen group of elements, within the electrolyte solution [Lim, 0022] and specifically states is may include fluoroethylene carbonate [Lim, 0086] and that while no example may be given that specifically teaches using FEC, it is still taught to be an embodiment of the electrolyte solution, whether preferred or not. Kim was not relied upon to teach the FEC additive of the claim.
Applicant argues that claim 1 of the present application includes all of an alkyl sultone-based compound, and alkenyl sultone-based compound and a sulfate-based compound, and the prior art merely lists compounds from which at least one may be selected, and does not provide motivation to select a specific combination of the three compounds.
In response to applicants arguments, Lim teaches in table 1, examples 11 and 12, the use of both a sultone-based compound and a sulfate-based compound, while only the alkyl sultone-based compound is shown in combination with the sulfate-based compound, Lim clearly states within the prior art, that specifically the compound containing one sulfonate group or sulfate group may include at least one, indicating the possibility of multiple compounds, such as a combination of an alkenyl sultone-based, alkyl sultone-based and examples 11 and 12 show the combination with a sulfate group, but may not be considered a preferred embodiment. The electrolyte solutions of Lim show in Tables 1, and improved capacity retention, output characteristics and cycle characteristic compared to the comparative examples of table 2, indicating an improved high-temperature storage.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Kim in combination with Lim teach the content ratio of the second additive to the first additive, as shown in the previous office action, wherein Kim teaches the first additive, comprising the γ-butyrolactone [Kim, 0012], to be in proportion of 0.1 to 10 parts by weight to 100 parts of the total solution [Kim, 0014], and the second active, as taught by Lim, is in an amount of 1 wt% to 18 wt% of the total weight of the electrolyte solution [Lim, 0021], therefore the weight ratio of the second additive to the first is 1.8 to 10, which falls within the claimed range.
Applicant argues examples 1-7, of tables 1 and 2 of the instant specification, in which a weight ratio of the second additive relative to the first is 1 to 10, show excellent high temperature storage characteristics, that are obtained by adjusting the component combination and content ratio of the first and second additive.
In response to applicants’ argument, it is unclear what is considered and excelled characteristic, due to the vast differences in values between examples 1-7, specifically within the increasing ratio of battery thickness, where the values range from 1 to 11%, and the increase ratio of DCIR, in which the values range from 1.6 to 35.6%. These vast differences do not make the argument regarding the content ratio of the first and second additive persuasive with such a range of results.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al, US 20200220216 A1 (already on the record), Kim, KR 20200082557 A (already on the record) and Kwak et al, US 20200185774 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Lim teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery, including a lithium salt, an organic solvent and an additive, wherein the additive is a mixed additive which includes difluoro phosphate (LiPO2F2, LiDFP), corresponding to the fluorine-containing phosphate based compound in the second additive of the claim, along with two additional compounds and a compound containing one sulfonate group or sulfate group [Lim, 0038-0040], wherein Example 11 of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution, shows an electrolyte mixture comprising both PS, and TMS [Lim, 0149}, wherein PS denotes 1,3-propane sultone, corresponding to the sultone-based compound for the second additive of the claim, and TMS which denotes trimethylene sulfate, corresponding to the sulfate-based compound for the second additive of the claim. Lim teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte may further include at least one additive consisting of a halogen-substituted carbonate based compound, fluorine is an element that belongs to the halogen group of elements, within the electrolyte solution [Lim, 0022] and specifically states is may include fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) [Lim, 0086], corresponding to the fluorine-containing carbonate-based compound of the claim. Furthermore, Examples 1-15 of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution depict electrolyte solution that do not contain a vinylidene carbonate-based compound or a lithium bis(oxalate) borate (LiBOB) [Lim, 0134-0153]. However, Lim is silent to teach on the first additive comprising a lactone-based compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 of the claim or the second additive containing a sultone-based compound and a sulfate-based compound, wherein the sultone-based compounds comprises and alkyl sultone-based compound and a alkenyl sultone-based compound. The second additive may be included in an amount of 1 wt% to 18 wt% based on the total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution [Lim, 0021]
Kim teaches an electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery with excellent discharge capacity and life performance [Kim, 0001], wherein an electrolyte additive may include at least one selected from the group containing γ-butyrolactone [Kim, 0012], corresponding to the first additive of the claim, with a C3 alkylene group. The first additive, comprising the γ-butyrolactone [Kim, 0012], has a proportion of 0.1 to 10 parts by weight to 100 parts by weight of the total solution [Kim, 0014], 0.1 wt% to 10 wt% of the total weight of the electrolyte, and], therefore, the ratio of a weight of the second additive to the first additive in the electrolyte solution is 1.8 to 10, which falls within the range required by the claim.
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Kim and Lim are considered analogous arts in the area of non-aqueous electrolyte solutions for lithium secondary batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Lim to include the γ-butyrolactone as an additive as taught by Kim because such modification would result in a battery with improved low-temperature and high-temperature performance [Kim, 0008].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Lim to include the proportion of the additive as taught by Kim because such modification would result in a battery with improved low-temperature and high-temperature performance [Kim, 0008].
Kwak teaches an electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery which further stabilizes a cathode structure [Kwak, 0016], and the electrolyte may include two or more additive selected from groups consisting of sultone-based compounds and sulfate based compounds [Kwak, 0051]. Specifically, examples 10-13, in table 3 of Kwak, depict electrolyte solutions including 1,3-propene sultone, PRS, corresponding to the alkenyl sultone-based compound of the claim, 1,3-propane sultone, PS, corresponding to the alkyl sultone-based compound of the claim, and ethylene sulfate, ESA [Kwak, 0223], corresponding to the sulfate based compound of the claim, wherein according to paragraph 0077 of the instant specification, 1,3-propane sultone and 1,4-butane sultone are alkyl sultone-based compounds and according to paragraph 0078 of the instant specification, 1,3-propene sultone, 1,4-butene sultone, and 1-methyl-1,3-propene sultone are alkenyl sultone-based compounds.
Kwak and Lim are considered analogous arts in the area of non-aqueous electrolyte solutions for lithium secondary batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Lim to include the combination of the alkyl sultone-based compound, the alkenyl sultone-based compound, and the sulfate based compound as taught by Kwak because such modification would result in a battery with improved characteristics and high temperature [Kwak, 0156].
Regarding Claim 2, modified Lim teaches the electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the lactone-based compound is at least one selected from the group containing γ-butyrolactone [Kim, 0012].
Regarding Claim 3, modified Lim teaches the electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1, but is silent to teach on the amount of the first additive, the lactone-based compound, being from 0.1 wt% to 10 wt% of the total weight of the electrolyte.
Kim teaches the electrolyte additive, including the at least one selected from the group containing γ-butyrolactone [Kim, 0012], is included in a proportion 0.1 to 10 parts by weight to 100 parts by weight of the entire electrolyte [Kim, 0014], which converts to 0.1 wt% to 10 wt% of the total weight of the electrolyte.
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Kim and Lim are considered analogous arts in the area of non-aqueous electrolyte solutions for lithium secondary batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Lim to include the proportion of the additive as taught by Kim because such modification would result in a battery with improved low-temperature and high-temperature performance [Kim, 0008].
Regarding Claim 4, modified Lim teaches the electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the additive, corresponding to the second additive of the claim, may be included in an amount of 1 wt% to 18 wt% based on the total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution [Lim, 0021].
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Lim teaches the electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the first additive, comprising the γ-butyrolactone [Kim, 0012], has a proportion of 0.1 to 10 parts by weight to 100 parts by weight of the total solution [Kim, 0014], 0.1 wt% to 10 wt% of the total weight of the electrolyte, and the second additive may be included in an amount of 1 wt% to 18 wt% based on the total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution [Lim, 0021], therefore, the ratio of a weight of the second additive to the first additive in the electrolyte solution is 1.8 to 10, which falls within the range required by the claim.
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Lim teaches the electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein fluoroethylene carbonate, corresponding to the fluorine-containing carbonate-based compound, is included as a cyclic carbonate-based solvent [Lim, 0048], and according to paragraph 0068 of the instant specification, has a cyclic structure.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Lim teaches the electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the sulfonate group or sulfate group may include at least one selected from ethylene sulfate (Esa), trimethylene sulfate (TMS), methyl trimethylene sulfate (MTMS) [Lim, 0062], shown in Formulas 4a-4c, to have cyclic structures.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Lim teaches the electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the Example 11 give the non-aqueous electrolyte being prepared with 16.95 g of a mixed additive, in which LiDFP, FB, TVS, PS, and TMS have a weight ratio of 1:8:0.3:1:1, added to 83.05 g of a solvent [Lim, 0149], wherein 1:8:0.3:1:1 is equal to 11.3 part, and therefore, LiDFP, corresponding to the fluorine-containing phosphate, has a weight percent of 1.5 wt%, (16.95)*1/11.3 = (( 1.5 g )/100 g solvent) * 100, PS, corresponding to the sultone-based compound, has a weight percent of 1.5 wt%, (16.95)*1/11.3 = (( 1.5 g )/100 g solvent) * 100, and TMS, corresponding to the sulfate based compound, has a weight percent of 1.5 wt%, (16.95)*1/11.3 = (( 1.5 g )/100 g solvent) * 100.
While not explicitly state that the fluorine-containing carbonate-based compound within the non-aqueous electrolyte would be included in an amount from 0.1 wt% to 1.5 wt%, Lim does teach the halogen-substituted carbonate-based compound, which may include fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), maybe included in an amount of 5 wt% or less for the formation of the SEI, because an amount greater than 5 wt% can result in cell swelling, and performance may deteriorate [Lim, 0086], therefore, it would be obvious for the amount of FEC within the electrolyte solution to be between 0.1 wt% and 1.5 wt% to protect the cell and precent cell swelling.
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Lim teaches the electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the organic solvent is not limited but can contain carbonate-based organic solvent, an ether-based solvent, or an ester-based solvent may be used alone or in mixture of two or more thereof [Lim, 0047], the carbonated-based solvents may include at least one of a cyclic carbonate-based organic solvent and a linear carbonate-based organic solvent [Lim, 0048].
Regarding Claim 12, modified Lim teaches a lithium secondary batter including a negative electrode and a positive electrode, with a separator disposed between the negative and positive electrode, and a non-aqueous electrolyte solution of claim 1[Lim, 0101]. While not explicitly stated that the anode faces the cathode, the separator is disposed between the negative and positive electrode, indicating the negative electrode faces the positive electrode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIAN ALICE ODOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM 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, 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.
/LILIAN ALICE ODOM/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722