ELECTROLYTE FOR RECHARGEABLE LITHIUM BATTERY AND RECHARGEABLE LITHIUM BATTERY INCLUDING SAME

§103 §112 §DOUBLEPATENT

DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1 and 3-15 are pending. Claim 2 has been canceled. The foreign priority application No.10-2021-0009661 filed on January 22, 2021 in the Republic of Korea has been received and it is acknowledged. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 08, 2026 has been entered. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-11, and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7-11, 14, 15, and 19 of copending Application No. 18/012,630 (US 2024/0072303). The copending Application No. 18/012,630 claims an electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent, a lithium salt, and an additive, wherein the additive includes a second compound. The second compound is a represented by Chemical Formula 1 or Chemical Formula 2: PNG media_image1.png 82 376 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 154 380 media_image2.png Greyscale , wherein in Chemical Formula 1, X1 and X2 are each independently a halogen or -O-L1-R1, at least one of X1 to X2 is -O-L1-R1, L1 is a single bind or a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C10 alkylene group, R1s are each independently a cyano group (-CN), a difluorophosphite group (-OPF2), a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C10 alkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C2-C10 alkenyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C2-C10 alkynyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C3-C10 cycloalkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C3-C10 cycloalkenyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C3-C10 cycloalkynyl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C20 aryl group, and wherein X1 and X2 are simultaneously -O-L1-R1, R1s are independently present, or two R1s are linked to form a substituted or unsubstituted monocyclic or polycyclic aliphatic heterocycle or a substituted or unsubstituted monocyclic or polycyclic aromatic heterocycle, and wherein in Chemical Formula 2 L3 and L5 may be a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C10 alkylene group or a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C30 arylene group, and Y1 to Y3 may be a cyano group (-CN)(claim 1). The copending Application No. 18/012,630 does not claim that the compounds of Chemical Formulas 1 and 2 are used in combination. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use the compounds of Chemical Formulas 1 and 2 in combination in the electrolyte of the copending Application No. 18/012,630, because the two compounds are used for the same purpose. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted) (Claims to a process of preparing a spray-dried detergent by mixing together two conventional spray-dried detergents were held to be prima facie obvious.) (MPEP 2144.06.I. COMBINING EQUIVALENTS KNOWN FOR THE SAME PURPOSE) The copending Application No. 18/012,630 further claims that the second compound is included in an amount of 0.1-5.0 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte (claim 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use a combination of a compound of Chemical Formula 1 and a compound of Chemical Formula 2, wherein each compound is comprised in an amount of 0.05-2.5 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte. In this case, the weight ratio of a compound of Chemical Formula 1 a compound of Chemical Formula 2 is 1:1, and this value is within the range in claim 1 of the instant application. Therefore, the electrolyte in claim 1 of the instant application is obvious over the electrolyte in claims 1 and 15 of the copending Application No. 18/012,630. The copending Application No. 18/012,630 further claims a compound of formula 2-c: PNG media_image3.png 166 382 media_image3.png Greyscale (claim 14), which is a compound of Chemical Formula 1 in claims 3 and 4 of the instant application wherein R1-R3 are substituted C2 alkyl groups. The copending Application No. 18/012,630 further claims that one of X1 and X2 in Chemical Formula 1 is a fluoro group and the other is -O-L1-R1, wherein L1 is a single bond or a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C10 alkylene group, R1 is a cyano group (-CN) or a difluorophosphite group (-OPF2)(claim 7), same as in claim 6 of the instant application. The copending Application No. 18/012,630 further claims a compound of Chemical Formula 1-1: PNG media_image4.png 80 380 media_image4.png Greyscale , wherein m is an integer from 1 to 5, and R2 is a cyano group (-CN) or a difluorophosphite (-OPF2) (claim 8), same as in claim 7 of the instant application. The copending Application No. 18/012,630 further claims that each of X1 and X2 in Chemical Formula 1 are -O-L1-R1, and two L1s are each independently a single bond or a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C10 alkylene group, and two R1s are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C10 alkyl group, or two R1s are linked to form a substituted or unsubstituted monocyclic aliphatic heterocycle or polycyclic aliphatic heterocycle (claim 9), same as in claim 8 of the instant application. The copending Application No. 18/012,630 further claims a compound of Chemical Formula 1-2: PNG media_image5.png 82 374 media_image5.png Greyscale wherein L6 is a substituted or unsubstituted C2-C5 alkylene group (claim 10), same as in claim 9 of the instant application. The copending Application No. 18/012,630 further claims that the Chemical Formula 1-2 is represented by Chemical Formula 1-2a or Chemical Formula 1-2b: PNG media_image6.png 110 376 media_image6.png Greyscale PNG media_image7.png 152 374 media_image7.png Greyscale , wherein R5-R14 are independently hydrogen, a halogen group, or a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C5 alkyl group (claim 11), same as in claim 10 of the instant application. The copending Application No. 18/012,630 further claims compounds of formulas 2-a to 2-d: PNG media_image8.png 98 380 media_image8.png Greyscale PNG media_image9.png 66 372 media_image9.png Greyscale PNG media_image10.png 70 376 media_image10.png Greyscale PNG media_image11.png 76 394 media_image11.png Greyscale (claim 14), same as the compounds of formulas 2-a to 2-d in claim 11 of the instant application. The copending Application No. 18/012,630 further claims a rechargeable lithium battery comprising a positive electrode including a positive electrode active material, a negative electrode including a negative electrode active material, and the electrolyte (claim 19), same as in claim 15 of the instant application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 9-13 of copending Application No. 18/013,824 (US 2023/0344004) in view of Schmitz et al. (US 2017/0040649). The copending Application No. 18/013,824 claims an electrolyte for a rechargeable battery comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent, a lithium salt, and an additive comprising a first compound of Chemical Formula 1 and a second compound of Chemical Formula 2-1 or Chemical Formula 2-3: PNG media_image12.png 78 190 media_image12.png Greyscale , PNG media_image13.png 76 304 media_image13.png Greyscale wherein m is integer from 1 to 5, R10 is a cyano group (-CN) or a difluorophosphite group (-OPF2); PNG media_image14.png 62 278 media_image14.png Greyscale , wherein X1 may be a halogen, and L1 is a substituted or unsubstituted C2-C5 alkylene group (claim 1). The first compound is included in an amount of 0.1-5wt% based on the total weight of the electrolyte (claim 10), and the second compound is included in an amount of 0.1-5wt% based on the total weight of the electrolyte (claim 11). The second compound in Chemical Formula 2-1 or 2-3 is the second compound of Chemical Formula 2 in claims 1, 6, 7 and 9 of the instant application. The compounds of Chemical Formulas 2-2a and 2-2b wherein R8-R17 are hydrogen atoms in claim 10 of the instant application are obvious over the compound of Chemical Formula 2-3 above wherein X1 is halogen and L1 is C2-3 alkylene. The first compound is not the first compound in claim 1 of the instant application. However, Schmitz et al. teach that the first compound of Chemical Formula 1 in claim 1 of the copending Application No. 18/013,824 is functionally equivalent with a compound of formula (IIa): PNG media_image15.png 92 376 media_image15.png Greyscale as flame retardants for electrolyte compositions (par.0045-0050 and par.0064-0066). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to replace the first compound of Chemical Formula 1 with the compound of formula (IIa) of Schmitz et al. in the electrolyte in claim 1 of the copending Application No. 18/013,824, because both compounds are flame retardants for electrolytes. Schmitz et al. further teach that in formula (IIa) R3-R5 may be C1-C10 alkyl, C3-C6 cycloalkyl, C6-C12 aryl which may be substituted with one or more F (par.0049). This compound is a first compound of Chemical Formula 1 in claims 1 and 3-4 of instant application. Schmitz et al. teach that the compound of formula (IIa) may be triethylphosphate (par.0050), which is a compound of formula 1-a in claim 5. Therefore, the electrolyte in claims 1, 10, and 11 of the copending Application No. 18/013,824 modified by Schmitz is equivalent to the electrolyte in claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 of the instant application. The copending Application No. 18/013,824 further claims that the composition comprises the first compound and the second compound in a weight ratio of 5:1 to 10:1 (claim 3). This range is within the range in claim 1 of the instant application. The copending Application No. 18/013,824 further claims that the second compound is a compound of one of the formulas 2-a to 2-d (claim 9), same as in claim 11 of the instant application. The copending Application No. 18/013,824 further claims that the composition represents 1.0-10wt% based on the total weight of the electrolyte (claim 12). This range is within the range in claim 14 of the instant application. The copending Application No. 18/013,824 further claims a rechargeable lithium battery comprising a positive electrode including a positive electrode active material, a negative electrode including a negative electrode active material, and the electrolyte (claim 13), same as in claim 15 of the instant application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Claims 1, 3-13, and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4, 5, 8-10, and 17 of copending Application No.18/776,080 (US 2025/0210709). The copending Application No.18/776,080 claims a rechargeable lithium battery comprising a cathode comprising a cobalt-free lithium nickel-manganese oxide, an anode comprising a negative electrode active material, and an electrolyte comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent, a lithium salt, a first additive comprises a compound of Chemical Formula 1-1 or Chemical Formula 1-2, and a second additive which may be represented by the Chemical Formula 2-1 to Chemical Formula 2-6: PNG media_image16.png 102 336 media_image16.png Greyscale , wherein m is an integer of 1 to 5, R5 is a cyano group (-CN) or a difluorophophte group (-OPF2); PNG media_image17.png 34 178 media_image17.png Greyscale PNG media_image18.png 78 118 media_image18.png Greyscale , wherein L5 is a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C5 alkylene group; PNG media_image19.png 112 334 media_image19.png Greyscale PNG media_image20.png 144 366 media_image20.png Greyscale PNG media_image21.png 176 398 media_image21.png Greyscale PNG media_image22.png 30 180 media_image22.png Greyscale PNG media_image23.png 186 268 media_image23.png Greyscale PNG media_image24.png 228 424 media_image24.png Greyscale PNG media_image25.png 196 392 media_image25.png Greyscale (claim 17). The first additive comprising a compound of Chemical Formula 1-1 of the copending Application No.18/776,080 is the “second compound represented by Chemical Formula 2” in claims 1, 6, 7 of the instant application, wherein X1 is a halogen, X2 is -O-L1-R4, L1 is an unsubstituted C1 to C5 alkyene group, R4 is a cyano group (-CN) or a difluorophosphite group (-OPF2). The first additive comprising a compound of Chemical Formula 1-2 of the copending Application No.18/776,080 is the “second compound represented by Chemical Formula 2” in claim 1 of the instant application, wherein X1 and X2 is -O-L1-R4, two R4s are linked to form a substituted or unsubstituted monocyclic aliphatic heterocycle. The first additive comprising a compound of Chemical Formula 1-2 of the copending Application No.18/776,080 is the “second compound of Chemical Formula 2-2” in claims 8 and 9 of the instant application. The second additives comprising compounds of Chemical Formula 2-1 to Chemical Formula 2-6 are the “first compound represented by Chemical Formula 1” in claims 1, 3, 4 of the instant application, wherein R1-R3 are unsubstituted C1-C5 alkyl groups or unsubstituted C6 groups. The second additive represented by the Chemical Formula 2-1 in claim 17 of the copending Application No.18/776,080 is the “first compound of formula 1-a” in claim 5 of the instant application. The copending Application No.18/776,080 further claims that weight ratio of the first additive to the second additive is about 10:1 to 1:10 (claim 8). This is equivalent to a ratio of the first compound to the second compound in claim 1 of the instant application of The copending Application No.18/776,080 further claims that the first additive is in an amount of 0.1-5wt% based in the total weight of the electrolyte (claim 9), and the second additive is in an amount of 0.1-10wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte (claim 10). The ranges in claims 9 and 10 are within the ranges in claim 1 of the instant application. The range in claim 10 is identical to the range in claim 13 of the instant application. The range in claim 9 includes the range in claim 12 of the instant application. The copending Application No.18/776,080 further claims the first additives of Chemical Formula 1-2a or 1-2b (claim 4), which are identical to the second compounds in claim 10 of the instant application. The copending Application No.18/776,080 further claims the first additives of Chemical Formulas 1-1 a-1, 1-1 a-2, 1-2 a-1, and 1-2 a-2 (claim 5), which are identical to the second compounds in claim 11 of the instant application. Therefore, the electrolyte in claims 4, 5, 8-10, and 17 of the copending Application No.18/776,080 is equivalent to the electrolyte in claims 1 and 3-13 of the instant application. The rechargeable battery in claims 8-10 and 17 of the copending Application No.18/776,080 is equivalent to the rechargeable battery in claim 15 of the instant application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. 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, 3-7, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2020/0251778) in view of Schmitz et al. (US 2017/0040649). With regard to claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 12 and 13, Choi et al. teach an electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery, said electrolyte comprising a lithium salt, a non-aqueous organic solvent, and an additive of Formula 1: PNG media_image26.png 56 238 media_image26.png Greyscale (par.0010-0018). A specific example of the additive of Formula 1 is the Compound 1: PNG media_image27.png 86 340 media_image27.png Greyscale (par.0050), which is a second compound of Formula 2 in claims 1 and 6, wherein X1 is a halogen, and X2 is -O-L1-R1, L1 is an unsubstituted C2 alkylene group, and R1 is a cyano(-CN) group. The Compound 1 is a second compound of Chemical Formula 2-1 in claim 7, wherein m=2 and R5 is a cyano(-CN) group. Choi et al. further teach that the additive is included in the electrolyte in the range of 0.1-5wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte (par.0061). This range is within the range for the second compound in claim 1 and it is identical to the range in claim 13 of the instant application. Choi et al. fail to teach that the electrolyte comprises as additive the first compound of Chemical Formula 1. Schmitz et al. teach an electrolyte for a lithium rechargeable/secondary battery (abstract, par.0146). The electrolyte comprises at least one flame retardant added to reduce the flammability(par.0045). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include a flame retardant of Schmitz et al. in the electrolyte of Choi et al., in order to reduce the flammability of the electrolyte. Schmitz et al. further teach that the flame retardant may be represented by the Formula (IIa): PNG media_image28.png 102 386 media_image28.png Greyscale , wherein R3-R5 may each independently be a C1-C10 alkyl group, a C3-C6 cycloalkyl, a C6-C12 aryl group, wherein the alkyl, cycloalkyl, aryl may be substituted (par.0047-0049), which is a first compound of Chemical Formula 1 in claims 1 and 3, wherein R1-R3 are unsubstituted or substituted C1-C10 alkyl, unsubstituted or substituted C3-C6 cycloalkyl, unsubstituted or substituted C6-C12 aryl group. Schmitz et al. further teach that the electrolyte comprises the flame retardant in a range of 1-10wt% (par.0091). This range is within the range for the first compound in claim 1, and includes the range in claim 12 of the instant application. The electrolyte of Choi modified by Schmitz may comprise 0.1-5wt% of the additive of Formula 1 (“second compound”) and 1-10wt% of the flame retardant of formula (IIa)(“first compound”) (see par.0061 of Choi et al. and par.0091 of Schmitz et al.). It would be expected that the ratio of the first compound to the second compound at least overlaps the claimed range. For example, the electrolyte may comprise 1wt% of the additive of Formula 1 (within the range of 0.1-5wt% in par.0061 of Choi et al.) and 5wt% of the flame retardant of formula (IIa)(within the range of 1-10wt%in par.0091 of Schmitz et al.). This electrolyte has a ratio of flame retardant of formula (IIa)(“first compound”): additive of Formula 1 (“second compound”) of 5:1. This value is within the range in claim 1. Therefore, the electrolyte of Choi modified by Schmitz is equivalent to the electrolyte in claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the instant application. With regard to claims 4 and 5, Schmitz et al. teach that the flame retardant of Formula (IIa) may be triethylphosphate (par.0049). Triethylphosphate is a first compound of Chemical Formula 1 in claim 4, wherein R1-R3 are unsubstituted C2 alkyl groups. Triethylphosphate is the compound 1-a in claim 5. With regard to claim 11, Choi et al. teach that the additive of Formula 1 may be the Compound 1: PNG media_image27.png 86 340 media_image27.png Greyscale (par.0050), which is the claimed compound 2-b. With regard to claim 14, Choi et al. further teach that the additive (“second compound”) is included in the electrolyte in the range of 0.1-5wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte (par.0061). Schmitz et al. further teach that the electrolyte comprises the flame retardant (“first compound”) in a range of 1-10wt% (par.0091). Therefore, an additive comprising a first compound and a second compound may be included in the electrolyte in an amount of 1.1-15wt%. This amount is within the claimed range. With regard to claim 15, Choi et al. teach a lithium secondary battery including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and the electrolyte (par.0019-0022). The positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material (par.0072), and the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode active material (par.0083). Claims 1, 3-5, 8, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (KR1020170052906A, with machine translation made of record on December 29, 2025) in view of Schmitz et al. (US 2017/0040649). With regard to claims 1, 3, 8, 12, and 13, Jeon et al. teach an electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery, said electrolyte comprising an organic solvent, a lithium salt, and an additive of Chemical Formula 1: PNG media_image29.png 116 168 media_image29.png Greyscale , wherein X may be P, n is an integer from 0 to 6, and R may be a cyano group (abstract, par.0010-0015). The additive of Chemical Formula 1 may be the compound of Chemical Formula 3: PNG media_image30.png 112 166 media_image30.png Greyscale wherein n is an integer from 0 to 4 (par.0042-0044), which is a second compound of Chemical Formula 2 in claim 1, wherein X1 and X2 are -O-L1-R4, L1 are single bonds or C1-C3 unsubstituted alkylene groups, and R4s are cyano (-CN) groups. Jeon et al. further teach that the additive (“second compound”) is included in an amount of preferably 0.5-5wt% of the electrolyte (par.0047). This range is within the ranges for the second compound in claims 1 and 13 of the instant application. Jeon et al. fail to teach that the electrolyte comprises as additive the first compound of Chemical Formula 1. Schmitz et al. teach an electrolyte for a lithium rechargeable/secondary battery (abstract, par.0146). The electrolyte comprises at least one flame retardant added to reduce the flammability(par.0045). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include a flame retardant of Schmitz et al. in the electrolyte of Jeon et al., in order to reduce the flammability of the electrolyte. Schmitz et al. further teach that the flame retardant may be represented by the Formula (IIa): PNG media_image28.png 102 386 media_image28.png Greyscale , wherein R3-R5 may each independently be a C1-C10 alkyl group, a C3-C6 cycloalkyl, a C6-C12 aryl group, wherein the alkyl, cycloalkyl, aryl may be substituted (par.0047-0049), which is a first compound of Chemical Formula 1 in claims 1 and 3, wherein R1-R3 are unsubstituted or substituted C1-C10 alkyl, unsubstituted or substituted C3-C6 cycloalkyl, unsubstituted or substituted C6-C12 aryl group. Schmitz et al. further teach that the electrolyte comprises the flame retardant in a range of 1-10wt% (par.0091). This range is within the range for the first compound in claim 1, and includes the range in claim 12 of the instant application. The electrolyte of Jeon modified by Schmitz may comprise 0.5-5wt% of the additive of Formula 1 (“second compound”) and 1-10wt% of the flame retardant of formula (IIa) (“first compound”) (see par.0047 of Jeon et al. and par.0091 of Schmitz et al.). The ratio of the first compound to the second compound would be expected to at least overlap the range in claim 1. For example, the electrolyte may comprise 1wt% of the additive of Formula 1 (within the range of 0.5-5wt% in par.0047 of Jeon et al.) and 5wt% of the flame retardant of formula (IIa) (with the range of 1-10wt% of Schmitz et al.). This electrolyte has the ratio of flame retardant of formula (IIa)(“first compound”) to the additive of formula 1 (“second compound”) of 5:1. This value is within the range of claim 1. Therefore, the electrolyte of Jeoni modified by Schmitz is equivalent to the electrolyte in claims 1, 3, 8, 12 and 13 of the instant application. With regard to claims 4 and 5, Schmitz et al. teach that the flame retardant of Formula (IIa) may be triethylphosphate (par.0049). Triethylphosphate is a first compound of Chemical Formula 1 in claim 4, wherein R1-R3 are unsubstituted C2 alkyl groups. Triethylphosphate is the compound 1-a in claim 5. With regard to claim 14, Jeon et al. teach that the additive (“second compound”) is included in an amount of preferably 0.5-5wt% of the electrolyte (par.0047). Schmitz et al. further teach that the electrolyte comprises the flame retardant (“first compound”) in a range of 1-10wt% (par.0091). Therefore, an additive comprising a first compound and a second compound may be included in the electrolyte in an amount of 1.5-15wt%. This amount is within the claimed range. With regard to claim 15, Jeon et al. teach a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode including a positive electrode active material, a negative electrode including a negative electrode active material, and the electrolyte interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (par.0064). Claims 1, 3, 5, and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavel et al. (KR 1020170018739A, with machine translation provided by the applicant on December 22, 2022) in view of Schmitz et al. (US 2017/0040649). With regard to claims 1, 3, 8, 12, and 13, Pavel et al. teach an electrolyte for a lithium battery comprising a lithium salt, an organic solvent, and a compound of Chemical Formula 1: PNG media_image31.png 72 152 media_image31.png Greyscale X is a halogen atom and R1 and R2 are independently substituted or unsubstituted C1-C20 alkyl groups, substituted or unsubstituted C2-C20 alkenyl groups, substituted or unsubstituted C2-C20 alkynyl group, substituted or unsubstituted C6-C20 aryl group or heteroaryl group, and R1 and R2 may be connected to form a ring with each other(abstract). Specific examples of the compound of Chemical Formula 1 are the compounds of formulas 4-7: PNG media_image32.png 104 88 media_image32.png Greyscale , PNG media_image33.png 140 108 media_image33.png Greyscale , PNG media_image34.png 108 92 media_image34.png Greyscale , and PNG media_image35.png 142 96 media_image35.png Greyscale (claim 6), which are equivalent to the second compound of Chemical Formula 2 in claims 1 and 8, wherein X1 and X2 are -O-L1-R1, L1 is a single bond, R4 are substituted or unsubstituted C1-C2 alkyl groups bonded to each other to form a ring. Pavel et al. further teach that the compound is included in the electrolyte in an amount of 0.5-3wt% based on the total weight of the electrolyte (claim 8). This range is within the ranges for the “second compound” in claims 1 and 13. Pavel et al. fail to teach that the electrolyte comprises as additive the first compound of Chemical Formula 1. Schmitz et al. teach an electrolyte for a lithium rechargeable/secondary battery (abstract, par.0146). The electrolyte comprises at least one flame retardant added to reduce the flammability(par.0045). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include a flame retardant of Schmitz et al. in the electrolyte of Pavel et al., in order to reduce the flammability of the electrolyte. Schmitz et al. further teach that the flame retardant may be represented by the Formula (IIa): PNG media_image28.png 102 386 media_image28.png Greyscale , wherein R3-R5 may each independently be a C1-C10 alkyl group, a C3-C6 cycloalkyl, a C6-C12 aryl group, wherein the alkyl, cycloalkyl, aryl may be substituted (par.0047-0049), which is a first compound of Chemical Formula 1 in claims 1 and 3, wherein R1-R3 are unsubstituted or substituted C1-C10 alkyl, unsubstituted or substituted C3-C6 cycloalkyl, unsubstituted or substituted C6-C12 aryl group. Schmitz et al. further teach that the electrolyte comprises the flame retardant in a range of 1-10wt% (par.0091). This range is within the range for the first compound in claim 1, and includes the range in claim 12 of the instant application. The electrolyte of Pavel modified by Schmitz may comprise 0.5-3wt% of the compound of Chemical Formula 1 (“second compound”) and 1-10wt% of the flame retardant of formula (IIa) (“first compound”) (see claim 8 of Pavel et al. and par.0091 of Schmitz et al.). The ratio of the first compound to the second compound would be expected to at least overlap the range in claim 1. For example, the electrolyte may comprise 1wt% of the compound of Chemical Formula 1 (within the range of 0.5-3wt% in claim 8 of Pavel et al.) and 5wt% of the flame retardant of formula (IIa) (with the range of 1-10wt% in par.0091 of Schmitz et al.). This electrolyte has the ratio of flame retardant of formula (IIa)(“first compound”) to the additive of formula 1 (“second compound”) of 5:1. This value is within the range of claim 1. Therefore, the electrolyte of Pavel modified by Schmitz is equivalent to the electrolyte in claims 1, 3, 8, 12, and 13 of the instant application. With regard to claims 4 and 5, Schmitz et al. teach that the flame retardant of Formula (IIa) may be triethylphosphate (par.0049). Triethylphosphate is a first compound of Chemical Formula 1 in claim 4, wherein R1-R3 are unsubstituted C2 alkyl groups. Triethylphosphate is the compound 1-a in claim 5. With regard to claim 9, the compounds of formulas 4-7 in claim 6 of Pavel et al. are second compounds of Chemical Formula 2-2 wherein L4 is a substituted or unsubstituted C2-C3 alkylene group. With regard to claim 10, the compounds of formulas 4 and 5 in claim 6 of Pavel et al. are second compounds of Chemical Formula 2-20, wherein R8-R11 are a hydrogen atom or an unsubstituted C1 alkyl group. The compounds of formulas 6 and 7 in claim 6 of Pavel et al. are second compounds of Chemical Formula 2-2b, wherein R12, R13, R16, and R17 are hydrogen atoms, R14 and R15 are hydrogen atoms or C1 alkyl groups. With regard to claim 11, the compound of formula 4 in claim 6 of Pavel et al. is the claimed compound 2-c. With regard to claim 14, Pavel et al. teach that the compound of Chemical Formula 1 (“second compound”) is included in an amount of preferably 0.5-3wt% of the electrolyte (claim 8). Schmitz et al. further teach that the electrolyte comprises the flame retardant (“first compound”) in a range of 1-10wt% (par.0091). Therefore, an additive comprising a first compound and a second compound may be included in the electrolyte in an amount of 1.5-13wt%. This amount is within the claimed range. With regard to claim 15, Pavel et al. teach a lithium battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte (claim 11). The positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material (par.0071), and the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode active material (par.0082). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed on June 05, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner would like to note that: -the objection to claims 1-15 are withdrawn after the applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 3, 4, and 6; -the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 3, and 4. On page 12 of the Remarks the applicant argues that the prior art rejections of record do not teach the weight ratio in the amended claim 1. However, the examiner would like to note that the prior art references of record provide teachings regarding the amounts of electrolyte components, so one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use the claimed components in the claimed weight ratio. On pages 12-13 of the Remarks the applicant argues that the Table 1 in the specification demonstrates unexpected improvements when the first compound and the second compound are in a weight ration of 0.01: 1 to 100:1. The examiner would like to note that the Examples 1-7 in Table 1 show electrolytes comprising a first compound and a second compound with weight ratios from 0.5:1 to 3:1. This range is not sufficient to show expected results for the claimed range of 0.01:1 to 100:1. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). (MPEP 716.02 (d).II. DEMONSTRATING CRITICALITY OF A CLAIMED RANGE) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANCA EOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-9810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6:30pm. 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. /ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722