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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending in the application. Claims 4-15 are withdrawn. Claims 1-3 are presently examined.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-3), in the reply filed on 11/24/2025, is acknowledged. Claims 4-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected groups.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1-3, the pdf document with the claims has poor resolution, especially Formula 1. Although examiner was able to discern, with difficulty, the structure of Formula 1, this structure won’t be clear in the granted patent. Examiner requests that Applicant submits a Word copy of the claims, with presumably improved resolution, with the next office action response.
Claims 2-3 recite “a lithium secondary battery”. This should be amended to “[[a]]the lithium secondary battery” because “a lithium secondary battery” was introduced in claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
The claims recite a “positive electrode additive for a lithium secondary battery” in the preamble. MPEP 2111.02(II) provides guidance for interpretation of this preamble:
“If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.”
The preamble of the claims is interpreted as a “purpose or intended use of the invention” and does not limit the claims for examination purposes.
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.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by “Synthesis and Controllable Self-Assembly of a Novel Coronene Bisimide Amphiphile” (Rao).
Claim 1 recites:
A positive electrode additive for a lithium secondary battery
As discussed in the Claim Interpretation section above, this preamble doesn’t limit the claim for examination.
Claim 1 also recites:
<Formula 1>
PNG
media_image1.png
282
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, R is a carbon chain
Rao teaches this chemical (see Figure A or Figure B below):
Figure A: Rao chemical 4 in Scheme 1, p. 2657 top of page
PNG
media_image2.png
337
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B: Rao product in Scheme 1, p. 2657 top of page
PNG
media_image3.png
134
800
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Figure B, claim 1 doesn’t state that the carbons of the benzene rings can’t be substituted, so the chemical of Figure B also anticipates the claimed Formula 1.
With regard to claim 2, Rao teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Rao also teaches the following claim 2 limitation:
R is a linear carbon chain (see Figure A or Figure B above)
It is unclear from Figure A alone whether or not Rao’s moiety, that is attached to the imide group, is linear or branched. The product of the reaction, illustrated in Figure B, makes it clear that this moiety is linear.
With regard to claim 3, Rao teaches the limitations of claims 1-2 as noted above. Rao also teaches the following claim 3 limitation:
R is an alkyl group having 8 to 12 carbon atoms (see Figure A or Figure B above)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
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.
/R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721