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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 5-11, and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (US 2019/0379045).
Regarding independent claim 1, He et al. disclose an electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery (abstract; paragraphs [0011], [0030]-[0033], [0054], [0074]-[0080], [0135], and [0149]; and Figures 1A and 1B), in which the electrolyte solution comprises the following components:
a lithium salt comprising lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, or LiTFSI, and lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, or LiFSI (see paragraph [0054]);
an organic solvent that comprises an ether-based solvent (see paragraph [0080]); and
a nitrogen compound in the form of lithium nitrate (see paragraph [0054]).
He et al. fail to explicitly teach the new claim 1 limitation “a molar concentration of the LiTFSI is equal to or higher than a molar concentration of the LiFSI” (similar to the applicants’ cancelled claim 4).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to assign different molar concentration values between these two lithium salt compounds, since He et al. disclose these two compounds as lithium salts within the claimed electrolyte solution. In this instance, discovering an optimal range/value of molar concentration of each of these lithium salts would have been conducted through routine experimentation, as would be envisioned by one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, it would have been obvious to try a limited number of predictable solutions (the two selected lithium salts of paragraph [0054] to include only one or two of three different relations of molar concentration, namely LiTFSI > LiFSI, LiTFSI = LiFSI, or LiTFSI < LiFSI) with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to obtain improved performance of the electrolyte solution in a high-performing rechargeable lithium battery (see paragraph [0074] of He et al.).
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 5, although He et al. disclose and/or suggest the electrolyte solution of independent claim 1, namely that the lithium salt further comprises lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl) imide (LiFSI) in an equal or lower amount than a molar concentration of the lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI), He et al. fail to explicitly teach the amount of LiTFSI to be 20 mol% or more, the molar concentration of the lithium salt to be 0.1 M to 4 M, and the amount by volume% of the ether-based content to be 80 vol% or more based on a total volume of the organic solvent. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that these amounts (in mol%, molar concentration, and volume%, respectively) would readily be provided, since He et al. disclose the same components as the applicants, wherein modification of these ranges would be subject to optimization within the claimed ranges by routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to obtain a safe and high-performing rechargeable lithium battery (see paragraph [0074]). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the ether-based solvent includes dimethyl ether, diethylene glycol dibutyl ether, and 2-ethoxyethyl ether, all of which are linear ethers (see paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 8, although He et al. disclose and/or suggest the electrolyte solution of independent claim 1 and the linear ether of claim 6, He et al. fail to explicitly teach a cyclic ether. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the cyclic ether to substitute for any of the three linear ethers disclosed by He et al. as applied to independent claim 1 (see paragraph [0030]), since He et al. disclose other alternatives, wherein selecting a cyclic ether would be a design choice for optimization of properties since it would be obvious to try a limited number of predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining improved performance of a safe and high-performing rechargeable lithium battery (see paragraph [0074]).
Regarding claims 9, 10, and 15-17, He et al. disclose and/or suggest the electrolyte solution of independent claim 1, but fail to teach the dissolving power of 2 g/100 g for the nitrogen compound at room temperature (20°C to 35°C), as well as that the electrolyte solution retains after storage (at a temperature between 45°C to 65°C for 4 weeks) 90 wt% or more of LiTFSI relative to its initial weight. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide these parameters, since it would merely be routine experimentation for creating the most optimized electrolyte solution and since He et al. disclose the nitrogen compound that comprises lithium nitrate (see paragraph [0054]), wherein modification of these ranges would be subject to optimization within the claimed ranges by routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to obtain a safe and high-performing rechargeable lithium battery (see paragraph [0074]). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claim 11, although paragraph [0030] of He et al. disclose that the organic solvent comprises numerous non-carbonate-based solvents, other options that include a carbonate-based solvent are dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, and propylene carbonate (see paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 13, He et al. disclose that the nitrogen compound comprises lithium nitrate (see paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claim 14, He et al. fail to teach the nitrogen compound (lithium nitrate of paragraph [0054]) is included in an amount of 2 wt% to 10 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte solution. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide this range of wt%, since it would involve routine experimentation to find the most effective electrolyte solution, and wherein modification of this range would be subject to optimization by routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to obtain a safe and high-performing rechargeable lithium battery (see paragraph [0074]). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claim 18, He et al. disclose a lithium secondary battery that comprises the electrolyte solution of independent claim 1, wherein the battery further comprises the following features (see paragraphs [0074] and [0075]):
a positive electrode (cathode);
a negative electrode (anode); and
a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (see paragraph [0075]; and Figures 1A and 1B).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, He et al. disclose that the positive electrode of the battery contains a positive electrode active material comprising a sulfur-containing compound that includes inorganic sulfur S8 (see paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 21, the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode active material of one of a lithium metal or a lithium alloy (see paragraph [0074]).
Regarding claim 22, the lithium secondary battery is a pouch cell battery (see paragraph [0149]).
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the applicants’ amendment provided with the request for continued examination received by the USPTO on June 26, 2026. The amendment overcomes the prior objection to the abstract. Although the amendment to independent claim 1 overcomes the prior 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection since cancelled claim 4 has been incorporated therein, all claims of record continue to be rejected under 35 USC 103 rejection (in view of He et al.), as provided in the above section. The applicants have cancelled claim 4. Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 13-22 are currently under consideration in the application.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-11, and 13-22 have been considered but are moot because the argument pertaining to the new limitation of independent claim 1 has been addressed in the newly underlined portions applied above in the 35 USC 103 rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 August 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights