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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-13, filed 02/02/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Müller et al. (WO2019/042741).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Müller et al. (WO2019/042741).
Considering Claim 1, Müller discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte (electrolyte composition [Abstract], that is non-aqueous [page 7 lines 5-10]), comprising:
a non-aqueous organic solvent including a monofluoro-based organic solvent (FEC solvent E8 [Table 1]) and a difluoro-based organic solvent (DFEA solvent E8 [Table 1]);
a lithium salt (at least one lithium salt including E8 [page 3 lines 15-25, page 18 lines 25-35]); and
an additive (LiBOB additive E8 [Table 1]),
wherein a weight ratio of the difluoro-based organic solvent relative to the monofluoro-based organic solvent is in a range from 4.5 to 9 (DFEA to FEC relative weight range is 75:15 or 5:1 in E8 [Table 1, page 17 lines 5-10]).
Considering Claim 2, Müller discloses an FEC solvent E8 [Table 1], which reads on Chemical Formula 1.
Considering Claim 3, Müller discloses DFEA solvent E8 [Table 1], which reads on Chemical Formula 2.
Considering Claim 4, Müller discloses that the additive comprises a boron-based compound (LiBOB additive E8 [Table 1]).
Considering Claim 5, Müller discloses that the additive comprises a boron-based compound (LiBOB additive E8 [Table 1]).
Considering Claim 6, Müller discloses that a content of the additive is in a range from 0.1 wt% to 1.0 wt% based on a total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte (LiBOB is 0.83 wt% of total electrolyte in E8 [Table 1]).
Considering Claim 7, Müller discloses a further auxiliary additive comprising an alkenyl sultone-based compound (PES additional additive in E8 [Table 1] (prop-1-ene-1,3-sultone [page 4 line 28]).
Considering Claim 8, Müller discloses that a content of the auxiliary additive is in a range from 0.8 wt% to 1.6 wt% based on a total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte (PES additive in E8 is 1.46 wt% of total electrolyte [Table 1]).
Considering Claim 9, Müller discloses that the lithium salt includes at least one of lithium hexafluorophosphate LiPF6 [page 18].
Considering Claim 11, Müller discloses a lithium secondary battery (lithium metal battery [page 5 line 25]), comprising:
a cathode (cathode [page 19 line 15]);
an anode facing the cathode (anode facing cathode with interposed separator [page 19 line 15]); and
the non-aqueous electrolyte of claim 1 (electrolyte [page 19 line 16], see claim 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P DOMONE whose telephone number is (571)270-7582. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P DOMONE/Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights