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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claims 1, 3 are amended.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed on 3/20/2026 have been entered.
The 102 rejections of previous Office action have been withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendments.
The 103 rejections of previous Office action have been withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendments and remarks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-11, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikeda et al (US 20130122360 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, and Claim 3,
Ikeda teaches a non aqueous electrolyte secondary battery that comprises a electrolyte solution comprising a ionic compound represented by formula below (Paragraph 0035).
PNG
media_image1.png
179
317
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ikeda specifically states that the compound contains a bisoxalatoborate anion (Paragraph 0035).
Ikeda also teaches that the Xm+ is an organic cation represented by a sulfonium cation (Paragraph 0039), as shown in formula below
PNG
media_image2.png
156
313
media_image2.png
Greyscale
When R13 to R15 are alkyl group such as methyl group then the Formula 1 above is the same as the claimed formula. Ikeda specifies that the ionic compound is used as an addition to a nonaqueous electrolyte solution (Paragraph 0042).
Ikeda teaches the use of carbonates such as propylenecarbonate, ethylene carbonate as nonaqueous solvents used in the electrolyte (Paragraph 0060). Ikeda also does not specifically teach the use of organophosphates used in the electrolyte solution, or the required use of the organophosphate in the electrolyte mix. Hence, Ikeda anticipates the limitations of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2,
Ikeda teaches that the ionic compound is added to the non-aqueous electrolyte in 1 to 10% by mass (Paragraph 0046), and shows specific examples within this range. This range falls within the claimed range of 0.001 to 10% by mass.
Regarding Claim 4 to Claim 9,
Ikeda teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (akin to an electrochemical device) that includes the ionic compound, a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a non-aqueous electrolyte solution (Paragraph 0059). The secondary battery is a lithium ion battery as stated in Paragraph 0028.
Regarding Claim 10, and Claim 11,
Ikeda teaches that the lithium secondary battery is used in automobiles for higher capacity and durability at high temperatures (Paragraph 0004, 0007 and 0015). The use of lithium secondary batteries in automobiles includes a module that comprises the batteries/electrochemical device.
Regarding Claims 14-16,
The components of the electrolyte solution of Ikeda are the same as that of the instant invention (i.e. the presence of carbonate solvent and lithium salts). The mass % of the compound within the electrolyte solution falls within the claimed range. The percentage of cations and anions in the electrolyte solution is a result of the composition of the solution. Per MPEP 2112.01, products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties. The dissociation of the solution components into cations and anions is a behavior property of the composition.
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.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al.
Ikeda teaches that the ionic compound is added to the non-aqueous electrolyte in 1 to 10% by mass (Paragraph 0046). This range overlaps with the claimed range of 0.01 to 5% by mass, and 0.01 to 3% by mass. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, then a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compound of Ikeda within the claimed mass % ranges in order to develop an effect of an improvement in the recovery characteristic with no adverse effect on the cycle characteristics (Paragraph 0046).
References of Interest
Examiner notes the following references of interest pertinent to this application
Yamazaki et al (US 20210194057 A1)
Shin Jae et al (KR 20160058506A)
Yamaguchi et al (US 20150331342 A1)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3 in view of Sakaguchi 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. A new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ikeda. Ikeda shows the use of a bisoxalatoborate salt in a non-aqueous electrolytic solution that has alkyl sulfonium cation. Formula 1 of Ikeda reads on the claimed formula, hence Ikeda anticipates the claimed chemical compound and solvent of instant invention as explained in 102 rejections section above.
Applicant argues that the combination of Fisher in view of Sakaguchi is not obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner agrees with the remarks of the applicant, and the 103 rejection based on Fisher in view of Sakaguchi has been withdrawn in this office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6278. 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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached on 571-272-8519. 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.
/SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights