Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/980,220

CAPACITY-COMPENSATION ELECTROLYTE, SECONDARY BATTERY CONTAINING THE SAME AND APPLICATION

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Nov 03, 2022
Examiner
D'ANIELLO, NICHOLAS P
Art Unit
1723
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Tianjin University
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
578 granted / 854 resolved
+2.7% vs TC avg
Strong +41% interview lift
Without
With
+41.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
905
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
54.4%
+14.4% vs TC avg
§102
21.4%
-18.6% vs TC avg
§112
12.2%
-27.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 854 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3 December 2025 has been entered. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The claims embrace a large number of material combinations by allowing for many different alternatives, and applicant is encouraged to focus on a single type of battery (i.e. lithium, sodium or potassium ion) and a single type of additive in order to advance prosecution in a meaningful way. Relevant MPEP Sections MPEP 2112.01 relating to Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 4-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 or 2) as being anticipated by Shimonishi et al. (US Pub 2015/0221940 newly cited). In regard to claim 1, 4-7, 9-12, 14-19, Shimonishi et al. teach a lithium-ion secondary battery (figure 1, note the prior art also appreciates the ability to use other active alkali metals such as sodium – paragraph [0047]) including a carbon-based anode 2 such as artificial or natural graphite (paragraph [0078]) and cathode 1 (paragraphs [0072] such as LiCoO2 or LiNiO2), separator 7 (paragraph [0069]) and an electrolyte (paragraphs [0081-0082]) including a capacity-compensation electrolyte for a lithium-ion secondary battery, comprising: a non-aqueous ester organic solvent such as EC:DMC:DEC (paragraph [0082,0098]), an electrolyte salt/additive component capable of compensating ions selected from one or more of lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6), lithium tetrafluoroborate (LiBF4), lithium perchlorate (LiClO4), lithium hexafluoroarsenate (LiAsF6) such as LiPF6 (paragraph [0082], particularly as a 1M solution) and an electrolyte additive component capable of compensating electrons such as 2 mass% vinylene carbonate (VC) (paragraph [0098]). The materials of the prior art are indistinguishable from the claimed materials and are therefore reasonably presumed to have the claimed properties – see MPEP 2112.01 above. The Examiner notes that as the prior art teaches “a composition of a component capable of compensating ions and a component capable of compensating electrons”, the limitations regarding “a component capable of compensating ions and electrons simultaneously” (such as independent claim 1 and claim 4, 15, 16) do not distinguish the claims from the prior art as such are not positively required by the claims when the first component is present in the prior art. Similarly, as the prior art teaches a lithium-ion battery or sodium-ion battery alternatively, the limitations regarding lithium-ion batteries (for claim 6 or 18) or sodium ion and potassium ion batteries (for claims 7, 11, 15, 19) do not distinguish the claims from the prior art as such are not positively required by the claims when a lithium-ion or sodium-ion battery is present in the prior art (i.e. the claims have many limitations which are required in the alternative). In regard to claim 8 and 20, in an example of the prior art the VC additive is present in 2 mass% and the LiPF6 is a 1M solution (paragraph [0098]). Therefore, as LiPF6 has a molar mass of 151.9 g/mol, the LiPF6 represents approximately 13.2 mass% of the electrolyte (i.e. 151.9/(151.9+1000)). The combined additives VC and LiPF6 add up to a total additive amount of 15.2 mass%. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Visco et al. (US Pub 2004/0131944) teaches LiP layers in electrolytes. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas P D'Aniello whose telephone number is (571)270-3635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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. /NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 03, 2022
Application Filed
May 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Aug 11, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 02, 2025
Final Rejection — §102
Dec 03, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 06, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 05, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 05, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12580186
NEGATIVE ACTIVE MATERIAL COMPOSITE FOR RECHARGEABLE LITHIUM BATTERY, METHOD OF PREPARING THE SAME, AND NEGATIVE ELECTRODE AND RECHARGEABLE LITHIUM BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573669
SAFETY DEVICE FOR BATTERY PACKS HAVING POUCH CELLS BY MECHANICAL INTERRUPTERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12573723
BATTERY AND MANUFACTURING METHOD OF THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12567602
SEPARATOR FOR RECHARGEABLE LITHIUM BATTERY AND RECHARGEABLE LITHIUM BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12562372
LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+41.3%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 854 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month