CTNF 18/088,378 CTNF 76895 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Species I-A-5, Species I-B-1 and Species I-C-2 in the reply filed on 11/04/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the additives are closely related” and “the burden of examination would not be significant”. With respect to Species I-A-1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8 and Species I-A-1-2/3/4/5/6/7, the restriction requirement/election of species is hereby withdrawn. Thus, there is no need to reply to applicant’s traversal. With respect to Species I-C-1/2/3/4, the election of species is maintained. Thus, applicant’s traversal on that subject is not found persuasive because as set forth in the 09/04/25 election of species, Species I-C-1/2/3/4 they all encompass different chemical structures/compositions regardless of being “cyclic carbonate-based compounds”; however, they are all, indeed, different cyclic carbonate-based compounds with different properties and characteristics. In this respect, applicant has not yet provided any specific technical reason(s) or objective explanation to clearly support that Species I-C-1/2/3/4 are not mutually exclusive in terms of either their structures, functional aspects, cooperative relationship, material/compositions, chemical properties and/or mechanical features and the likes within the context of the claimed invention. Further, applicant has not yet admitted on the written record that, or submitted or identified evidence to show, Species I-C-1/2/3/4 are obvious variants . Therefore, the embodiments/compounds of Species I-C-1/2/3/4 represent distinct and mutually exclusive species which do not overlap in scope. Moreover, applicant's attention is particularly directed to MPEP 809.02(a) which indicates how to identify species by illustrative figures, examples, mechanical means , particular materials , or other distinguishing characteristics . Accordingly, serious burden would be raised if the search of such different species was made as required for the separate, distinct and mutually exclusive species or embodiments. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/23/22 was considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings were received on 12/23/22. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not appear to capture the disclosed/claimed inventive concept. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim s 1 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by Du et al 2021/0020978 . As to claims 1, 5-10: Du et al disclose that it is known in the art to make electrolytes for lithium secondary batteries (0001-0002) comprising multiple components including one or more solvents, Li-salts and additives (Abstract; 0004; 0022-0036). In particular, Du et al disclose the electrolyte containing more than one organic solvents, i.e., a solvent and a co-solvent (0088); a lithium salt such as LiBF4, LiTFSI, LiBOB, LiClO4, LiAsF6, LiN(CF3SO2)2, LiI, LiCl and the likes (0030; 0089) which may be present at least 2M or 3M, at between 1-3 M (0031). Du et al teach LiPF6 and/or LiDFOB (lithium difluoro-bisoxalato borate) ( the fluorine element additive ) (0030); LiNO3 ( the nitrogen element additive ) (0030); and vinylene carbonate ( the carbonate-based compound ) (0054; 0060-61; 0115-0116; 0130). Du et al teach different electrolyte compositions with different concentrations, weight percent and/or amounts of material (0022-0036; 0058; 0062). In this case, it bears noting that Du et al readily envision different electrolyte compositions with different additives and/or combinations thereof. Thus, the present claims are anticipated . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 2-4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al 2021/0020978 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al 10347941 . Du et al are applied, argued and incorporated herein for the reasons manifested supra. However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the specific organic solvent and co-solvent and the specific solvent/co-solvent volume ratio and the specific additive weight percent. As to claims 2-3, 4-5: In the same field of applicant’s endeavor, Kim et al disclose that it is known in the art to make electrolytes for lithium-based batteries wherein the electrolyte contains solvents, a Li-salt and additives (Abstract; COL 2, lines 14-65; COL 8, lines 1-40). In particular, Kim et al disclose the use of dimethyl ether (COL 2, lines 25-26; COL 8, lines 24-25); 1,2-dimethoxyethane; diethylene glycol dimethyl ether; triethylene glycol dimethyl ether (the organic solvents) (COL 2, lines 16-22; COL 8, lines 15-21). In addition, Kim et al disclose the use of TTE (1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl either (the co-solvent) (COL 2, lines 23-25; COL 8, lines 22-24). Kim et al teach different electrolyte compositions with different concentrations, weight percent and/or amounts of material (COL 2, lines 14-65; COL 8, lines 1-40). In this case, it bears noting that Kim et al readily envision different electrolyte compositions with different additives and/or combinations thereof. By compounding the above teachings, it would have been within the ambit of a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the specific organic compounds of Kim et al as the organic solvent and co-solvent in the electrolyte of Du et al as Kim et al teach that such specifically disclosed organic compounds assist in improving cycle characteristics and durability, and in providing a large-capacity lithium secondary battery with enhanced electrochemical properties. Further, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima-facie obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US- 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). With particular respect to the specific solvent/co-solvent volume ratio and the specific additive weight percent, Du et al and Kim et al they both recognize the electrolyte content and the amount (i.e., concentration/weight/volume percent) of respective organic solvents and additives as variables which achieve a recognized result, thus, the claimed ranges of the specific solvent/co-solvent volume ratio and the specific additive weight percent result from the characterization as routine experimentation of an optimum or workable range. Accordingly, the specific solvent/co-solvent volume ratio and the specific additive weight percent are being construed as a result-effective variable . In re Aller 105 USPQ 233, 235; In re Hoeschele 160 USPQ 809, In re Antonie 195 USPQ 6 (MPEP 2144.05 IL Optimization of Ranges) . Further, generally speaking, differences in concentration, amount of material, weight/volume percent will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration/amount of material is critical . "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. " In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) . Thus, it is prima-facie obvious to choose or select the specific concentration/amount of material of the claimed solvent, co-solvent and additives. See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Ranges. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (8:00 am-6:30 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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. /RAYMOND ALEJANDRO/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 1752 Application/Control Number: 18/088,378 Page 2 Art Unit: 1752 Application/Control Number: 18/088,378 Page 3 Art Unit: 1752 Application/Control Number: 18/088,378 Page 4 Art Unit: 1752 Application/Control Number: 18/088,378 Page 5 Art Unit: 1752 Application/Control Number: 18/088,378 Page 6 Art Unit: 1752 Application/Control Number: 18/088,378 Page 7 Art Unit: 1752 Application/Control Number: 18/088,378 Page 8 Art Unit: 1752