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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/24/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim 1-4, 14 are amended.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on 6/24/2026 have been entered.
103 rejections from previous office action have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (US 20220376299; foreign priority date: Jun 26, 2020) in view of Masuda et al (US 20170133716 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 2, Claim 14,
Choi teaches an electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery comprising a lithium salt (Paragraph 0043), an organic solvent (Paragraph 0043), and a compound as defined by formula below (Paragraph 0012).
PNG
media_image1.png
531
336
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Choi also provides examples as below that read on the claimed formulas.
PNG
media_image2.png
51
322
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Choi teaches the use of organic solvents comprising chain carbonates and cyclic carbonates (Paragraph 0044). Chain carbonates are diethyl carbonate (DEC), ethylmethyl carbonate (EMC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), dipropyl carbonate (DPC). Cyclic carbonates are ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), butylene carbonate. Choi also teaches that organic solvent may be one type of mixed solvent or two or more types of mixed solvents (Paragraph 0045). The organic solvent having high permittivity, EC, PC, may be used, and the low-viscosity organic solvent, EMC, DMC, DEC, or the like may be used. Hence, Choi teaches a mixture of the cyclic carbonate and chain carbonate solvent, which could include the claimed combination of EC, EMC and DMC (claim 14). Choi does not teach that the content of chain carbonate being greater than 80% and up to 95%, and the content of cyclic carbonate being at least 5% and less than 20%.
However, Masuda teaches a battery cell that reduces the undesired hazardous behavior such as degassing and development of fire and explosion (Paragraph 0002, 0009). Hence, Masuda is in an analogous field of art because it aims to solve the problem in the instant invention related to gas suppression, and electrolyte stability. Masuda teaches that the electrolyte solvent comprises atleast one cyclic carbonate and atleast one linear carbonate, and a ratio in vol% of the cyclic carbonate to the linear carbonate ranges from 10:90 to 5:95 (Paragraph 0005).
This ratio overlaps with the claimed ratio of the content of chain carbonate greater than 80% and up to 95%, and the content of cyclic carbonate being at least 5% and less than 20%. 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 value which overlaps with claimed ratio of chain carbonate and cyclic carbonate as organic solvent into the solvent mixture of Choi in order to reduce the ion conductivity of the electrolyte (Paragraph 0005).
Regarding Claim 4,
Choi teaches that in Formula 1 (paragraph 0012, and 0018), R3 and R4 or R7 and R8 are bonded to form an aromatic ring, more preferably a benzene ring (Paragraph 0027).
Regarding Claim 5, and Claim 6,
Choi teaches that the electrolyte additive is included in an amount of 0.1 to 10% by weight. This range is overlapping the claimed % of 0.05 to 20 wt%, and 0.1 to 10 wt%.
Regarding Claim 7, and Claim 8,
Choi teaches the use of formula below which reads on the claimed formula 5, and claimed formula 9.
PNG
media_image2.png
51
322
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Choi teaches the use of formulas below which are akin to claimed formula 11 and claimed formula 14.
PNG
media_image2.png
51
322
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9,
Choi teaches the use of LiPF6, LiBF4, LiSbF6 and other lithium salts (Paragraph 0048).
Regarding Claim 10,
Choi teaches the use of the lithium salt at a concentration of 0.6 mol % to 2 mol %. Choi also teaches in Example 1 and Example 2 that the electrolyte is a 1.15M solution containing LiPF6 as a lithium salt. This value lies within the claimed range of lithium salt concentration. 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 choose suitable overlapping values from claimed concentration of 0.1 to 5 M to improve electrolytic performance and have suitable viscosity (Paragraph 0049).
Regarding Claim 11,
Choi teaches the use of ethylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate and other organic solvents (paragraph 0044).
Regarding Claim 12,
Choi teaches a secondary battery that includes an anode, cathode, and the electrolyte (paragraph 0055). Cathode and anode have active materials (Paragraph 0056, and 0061).
Regarding Claim 13,
Choi teaches the use of Li[NixCo1-x-yMny]O2 wherein 0<x<0.5, 0<y<0.5) as the cathode active material (Paragraph 0057). This reads on the claimed positive electrode composition.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Masuda and further in view of Sun et al (US 20150357638 A1).
Choi teaches the use of lithium composite metal oxide as cathode active material as shown in Paragraph 0057, but does not limit the type to the formula shown. Choi does not specifically teach the claimed Formula 5-1.
PNG
media_image3.png
106
543
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Sun teaches the use of Formula 1 in the cathode active material as shown below.
PNG
media_image4.png
207
412
media_image4.png
Greyscale
When M1 is Ni, M2 is Co, M4 is Al, x1 = 0.6 -0.95, y1= 0-0.2, z1 = 0, w = 0-0.1 then formula 1 of Sun overlaps with the claimed formula. 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 a lithium composite oxide as shown in Sun as the lithium composite metal oxide in Choi in order to improve the stability and electrical conductivity of the cathode active material (Paragraph 0061).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 3 states that the compound represented by Formula 1 is a compound represented by Formula 3; ‘is’ denotes “consisting of”. The formula 3 defined in Claim 3 is allowable because prior art does not allude to the C=N-R1 structural group as shown in both ring structures of this claim.
Other prior art references that provide similarity in structure but do not show the C=N-R1 structure are:
Yu et al (US 20130004840 A1) teaches the following formula
PNG
media_image5.png
77
322
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Shizuka et al (JP 2016018708 A) teaches some formulas as below.
PNG
media_image6.png
435
325
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that Choi does not disclose the claimed % by volume of the content of the chain carbonate and cyclic carbonate in the organic solvent. Examiner refers to Paragraph 0046 in Choi which teaches that preferably the organic solvent having high permittivity (i.e. Chain carbonates) and the low-viscosity organic solvent (i.e. cyclic carbonates) are mixed in a volume ratio of 2:8 to 8:2 (Paragraph 0046). This is a preferred embodiment but does not limit the volume ratio to be within the stated range. As stated in rejection of Claim 1 above, Masuda teaches the volume ratio between chain carbonate and cyclic carbonates which in combination with the invention of Choi reads on the amended claim limitations.
Applicant argues that Choi teaches mol%, and that mol % and M do not coincide. Examiner points to rejection of Claim 10 above which also cites the M value from examples in Choi, which is within the claimed range. Also, Choi teaches the mol% and the reasons to optimize the value of the mol% to overcome electrolyte viscosity issues. 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 optimize the lithium salt mol % and in turn optimize the M (molarity) of the solution.
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