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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/27/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/25/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 11-12 are amended.
Claim 3 was previously cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 4-13 are considered on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the instant application has specific differences from the cited references as follows:
The combined presences of 1,3-propane sultone (PS) and 1,3-propene sultone (PRS) in the auxiliary additive contributes to unexpectedly significantly improve high-temperature storage characteristics evidences by the Shim declaration (Remarks pp. 9).
Hallac and Hu are premised on different design philosophies and technical considerations.
The combined use of PS and PRS reflects more than a routine design modification or optimization is accompanied by unexpected improvements in high-temperature storage characteristics (Remarks pp. 12).
Applicant additionally presents a declaration under Rule 132 executed by Youjin Shim (“Shim Declaration”) showing additional comparative experiments conducted using the same experimental method as Example 6. Example 6, which includes both PS and PRS, in the auxiliary electrolyte contributes to unexpectedly significantly improved high-temperature storage characteristics and the performance difference is attributable to specific PS+PRS combination (Shim Declaration pp. 3).
In regards to argument a and c, Saidi discloses “sulfonate esters, such as sultones, suppress swelling of cells at elevated temperature” and “an energy storage device comprising an electrolyte including both a carbonate and a sultone additive can exhibit reduced gas evolution and improved cycle performance at elevated temperatures.” ([0079]). Saidi teaches wherein the sulfonate ester is selected from the group consisting of 1,3-propane sultone, prop-1-ene-1,3-sultone and combinations thereof (Claim 12; [0013]; [0080]; emphasis added). Therefore it is known in the art to utilize a combination of 1,3-propane sultone and prop-1-ene-1,3-sultone as an electrolyte additive in a non-aqueous lithium battery. Further, it is known in the art that the combination of 1,3-propane sultone, prop-1-ene-1,3-sultone, and a carbonate such as fluoroethylene carbonate, results in improved cell performance at elevated temperatures.
In regards to argument b, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Hallac reference have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the Hallac reference.
In regards to the Shim Declaration (d), the arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. In the data presented in the Shim Declaration, the values of each composition are very specific in Examples 1, 6 and 2 vs. Additional Comparative Examples 1 and 2. Specifically, 0.5wt% of PS and PRS are added in Examples 1, 2, and 6; 0.5 wt% of PRS is added to Additional Comparative Example 1; and 0.5wt% of PS is added to Additional Comparative Example 2. Claim 1 merely requires the presence of any amount of 1,3-propane sultone and 1,3-propene sultone (emphasis added). Further, the Shim Declaration does not recite the amount and volume ratio. As such, applicant’s declaration is unpersuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the claims.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 11 and 12 refer to “the auxiliary additive”. For purposes of examination it is considered that “the auxiliary additive” describes the fluorine-substituted cyclic carbonate compound and both sultone compounds. Therefore weight percentages are interpreted as being in reference to the cumulative amount of fluorine-substituted cyclic carbonate compound and both sultone compounds.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 contains the limitation “wherein a ratio of a weight of the auxiliary additive to a weight of the additive in the electrolyte is 0.5 to 10”. It is unclear if the weight ratio of auxiliary additive to additive is “0.5:1 to 10:1” or “0.5:10”.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saidi et al. (US 20210111432 A1) hereinafter "Saidi" in view of Hu Xiaochun et al. (CN104282942A) hereinafter "Hu". Reference is made to the previously provided translation.
Regarding claim 1, Saidi teaches an electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery comprising: a lithium salt; a solvent composed of a non-aqueous solvent and including a carbonate solvent ([0008]; [0082] LiPF6; [0057]); an auxiliary additive including a fluorine-substituted cyclic carbonate compound and a sultone compound, wherein the sultone compound includes 1,3-propane sultone and 1,3-propene sultone ([0079]-[0082]; [0013] “fluoroethylene carbonate”; claim 12 “wherein the sulfonate ester is selected from the group consisting of 1,3-propane sultone, prop-1-ene-1,3-sultone and combinations thereof”; prop-1-ene-1,3-sultone is an alternate name for 1,3-propene sultone).
Saidi does not teach an additive including a bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide alkali metal salt, wherein the bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide alkali metal salt excludes lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide.
However, Hu teaches an electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery comprising: a lithium salt; a solvent composed of a non-aqueous solvent and including a carbonate solvent; an additive including a bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide alkali metal salt, wherein the bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide alkali metal salt excludes lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide ([0011]; [0013]-[0014]; [0018]-[0019]; [0028]; [0030]). Hu teaches a combination of a lithium salt such as LiPF6 and an electrolyte additive such as potassium bis(fluorosulfonyl) imide (KFSI) or sodium bis(fluorosulfonyl) imide (NaFSI) ([0018]). Hu teaches that the inclusion of non-lithium alkali metal salts, such as potassium or sodium fluorosulfonamide can help conductive lithium salts be used over a wider temperature range, resulting in superior performance in terms of high and low temperature battery performance, and have a price advantage ([0012]-[0014]; [0028]-[0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrolyte taught by Saidi by including a non-lithium alkali metal salts, such as potassium or sodium fluorosulfonamide as taught by Hu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the electrolyte taught by Saidi by including a non-lithium alkali metal salts, such as potassium or sodium fluorosulfonamide as taught by Hu to increase the performance in terms of high and low temperature battery performance ([0012]-[0014]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Saidi teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1. Modified Saidai further teaches wherein the bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide alkali metal salt includes at least one selected from the group consisting of sodium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, potassium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, rubidium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide and cesium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (Hu [0018]).
Regarding claims 4-5, modified Saidi teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1. Hu further teaches wherein the bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide alkali metal salt excludes lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide is included in an amount of 0.1-10% by weight based on the total weight of the electrolyte (Abstract; [0016]-[0018]; see original document par. [0013]-[0015] and additional translation document par. [0013]-[0015] for support).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included the non-lithium alkali metal salts at a weight % within the weight % ranges for electrolyte additives taught by Hu. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 6, modified Saidi teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1. Saidi further teaches wherein the solvent excludes water, an alcohol solvent and a glycol ether solvent ([0082]; [0057]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Saidi teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1. Saidi further teaches wherein the carbonate solvent includes a cyclic carbonate solvent and a linear carbonate solvent ([0057]; [0079]-[0082]; for example cyclic ethylene carbonate and linear dimethyl carbonate).
Regarding claim 8, modified Saidi teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 7. Saidi further teaches wherein the cyclic carbonate solvent includes ethylene carbonate ([0079]-[0082]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Saidi teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 7. Saidi further teaches wherein the linear carbonate solvent includes at least one selected from the group consisting of dimethyl carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate ([0079]-[0082]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Saidi teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1. Saidi teaches wherein the electrolyte further includes at least one auxiliary additive selected from the group consisting of a cyclic carbonate compound ([0057]; [0101]; vinylene carbonate).
Regarding claim 11, modified Saidi teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1. Saidi teaches wherein the auxiliary additive is included in an amount of 0.1 to 15% by weight based on the total weight of the electrolyte ([0081] carbonate 0.1-10 wt% and sultone 0.5-5wt%).
Regarding claim 12, modified Saidi teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1.
Modified Saidi does not explicitly teach wherein a ratio of a weight of the auxiliary additive to a weight of the additive in the electrolyte is 0.5 to 10.
However, Saidi teaches wherein an auxiliary additive (is included in an amount of 0.1 to 15% by weight based on the total weight of the electrolyte ([0081]) and Hu teaches wherein the bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide alkali metal salt is included in an amount of 0.1-10% by weight based on the total weight of the electrolyte (Abstract; [0016]-[0018]; see original document par. [0013]-[0015] and additional translation document par. [0013]-[0015] for support).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included the auxiliary additive and the additive in an amount within the range taught by modified Saidi, thereby overlapping with the claimed weight ratio. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 13, modified Saidi teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1. Saidi further teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising: a cathode including a lithium metal oxide as a cathode active material; an anode disposed to face the cathode ([0011]; [0016]; [0055]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-6:30.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights