Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/096,928

Non-Aqueous Electrolyte Comprising Additives for Non-Aqueous Electrolyte, and Lithium Secondary Battery Comprising the Same

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 13, 2023
Examiner
LIN, GIGI LEE
Art Unit
1726
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
LG Energy Solution, Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
21%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
55%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 21% of cases
21%
Career Allow Rate
3 granted / 14 resolved
-43.6% vs TC avg
Strong +33% interview lift
Without
With
+33.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
62 currently pending
Career history
76
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
53.4%
+13.4% vs TC avg
§102
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
§112
23.1%
-16.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 14 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Summary This is an initial Office Action based on the 18/096,928 application filed on Jan 13, 2023. Claims are currently pending and have been fully considered. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: "the method of claim 7" in line 1, which should be revised to recite “the non-aqueous electrolyte of claim 7.” Appropriate correction is required. 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. 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. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwatani et al (JP 2015018601 A), disclosed in the IDS submitted 01/13/2023, in view of Noguchi et al (US 20150236376 A1), disclosed in the IDS submitted 06/27/2023. Regarding claim 1, Iwatani teaches a nonaqueous electrolytic containing one or more compounds γ selected from the group of a compound represented by formula (II) and a compound represented by formula (III) (translation, p7 para 10-11 to p8 para 1-4), wherein formula (III) includes III-1 (original, p12 lines 40-50), reproduced below. Formula III-1 teaches a class of phosphate additives with a cyclic phosphate group having two carbon atoms in the ring and having a functional group R4, in which R4 can be a fluorine-containing alkyl group which may contain an etheric oxygen atom and wherein a portion of the hydrogen atoms of the alkyl group is substituted partially with a fluorine atom (translation, p7 para 10-11 to p8 para 1-4) and includes the -R-O-X functional group of the claimed species; therefore, the class of phosphate additives taught by Iwatani includes the claimed species. PNG media_image1.png 107 432 media_image1.png Greyscale Reproduced structure of Formula III-1 from Iwatani et al. However, Iwatani does not explicitly disclose a structure for R4 wherein the claimed R has 1 to 5 carbon atoms and wherein the claimed X is a perfluoroalkyl group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms. One of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to prior art using electrolytes with similar phosphate additives to select the substituent functional group. In a similar field of endeavor, Noguchi provides in [0030] a compact list of useful examples of similar phosphate additives with the general formula O=P(O-R1)(O-R2)(O-R3) ([0012]). The second phosphate compound in Noguchi’s list contains the functional group -O-C2H4-O-CF3, and it is an example of Iwatani’s –O-R4 group, wherein R4 is a fluorine-containing alkyl group which may contain an etheric oxygen atom and wherein a portion of the hydrogen atoms of the alkyl group is substituted partially with a fluorine atom. In addition, Noguchi teaches that use of their fluorine-containing phosphate compound increases the oxidation stability of the electrolyte solution and enables use of the electrolyte in a high voltage battery ([0021], [0028]). A skilled artisan would have turned to Noguchi to select the substituent corresponding to -O-C2H4-O-CF3 to use for Noguchi’s -O-R4 functional group of Formula III-1 given that it is a suitable option and the resulting phosphate additive supports use of the electrolyte in a high voltage battery, which primary reference Iwatani teaches as being an important function of the additive compound (translation: p8 para 5 states “when the non-aqueous electrolyte contains the compound (γ), good cycle characteristics can be obtained even when charging and discharging are performed at a high voltage”). The combined prior art of Iwatani in view of Noguchi thus teaches Iwatani’s Formula III-1 with -O-C2H4-O-CF3 as its -O-R4 group, which reads on the claimed limitation of Chemical Formula 1. Regarding claim 2, the combination above teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte of claim 1, and the additive previously taught in addressing claim 1 also meets the limitations of claim 2, wherein R is an alkylene group having 2 carbon atoms. Regarding claim 3, the combination above teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte of claim 1, and the additive previously taught in addressing claim 1 also meets the limitations of claim 3 (X=CF3). Regarding claim 4, the combination above teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte of claim 1, and the additive previously taught in addressing claim 1 also meets the limitations of claim 4, wherein R is an alkylene group having 2 carbon atoms. Regarding claim 5, the combination above teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte of claim 1, and the additive previously taught in addressing claim 1 also meets the limitations of claim 5, wherein the additive is Chemical Formula 2-3. Regarding claim 6, the combination above teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte of claim 1, and Iwatani further teaches the additive can be included in an amount 0.2 to 30.0 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the base electrolyte (p8 para 6), which overlaps with the claimed range. Regarding claim 7, the combination above teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte of claim 1, and Iwatani further teaches the electrolyte includes a lithium salt (p7 para 5 teaches lithium salts) and an organic solvent (p5 para 5 and p6 para 3 teach a base electrolyte consisting of a cyclic carbonate compound, a chain carbonate compound, a cyclic ester compound, and a chain ester compound, examples are dimethyl carbonate DMC, ethyl methyl carbonate EMC, and diethyl carbonate DEC, and these are known to be organic solvents). Regarding claim 8, the combination above teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte of claim 7, and Iwatani further teaches the lithium salt is one or more from the claimed group (p7 para 5 teaches lithium salts LiPF6, LiClO4, LiBF4, LiCF3SO3, LiN(CF3SO2)2, which are claimed species). Regarding claim 9, the combination above teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte of claim 7, and Iwatani further teaches wherein the lithium salt is included at a concentration of 0.5 mol/l to 1.5 mol/l, that is 0.5 M to 1.5 M (p7 para 7), which is within the claimed range. Regarding claim 10, the combination above teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte of claim 7, and Iwatani further teaches the organic solvent includes at least one solvent selected from the claimed group (p5 para 5 and p6 para 3 teach a base electrolyte consisting of a cyclic carbonate compound, a chain (i.e., linear) carbonate compound, a cyclic ester compound, and a chain (i.e., linear) ester compound). Regarding claim 11, the combination above teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte of claim 11, and Iwatani further teaches the organic solvent includes a cyclic carbonate-based organic solvent (p5 para 5 and p6 para 3 teach a base electrolyte consisting of a cyclic carbonate compound). Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte of claim 1, and Iwatani further teaches a lithium secondary battery (p1 para 2; the Technical Field describes the invention being pertinent to a lithium ion secondary battery) including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (p2 para 7). Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte of claim 12, and Iwatani teaches SiOx (0≤x≤2) as a negative electrode active material (p4 last para discloses Si, which corresponds to SiOx, x=0). Regarding claim 14, the combination above teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte of claim 12, and the additive previously taught in addressing claim 1 also meets the limitations of claim 14, wherein the additive is Chemical Formula 2-3. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIGI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2017. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 6. 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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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. /GIGI LEE LIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1726 /JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 2 September 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 13, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 18, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 18, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12525687
BATTERY MODULE AND BATTERY PACK INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 1 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
21%
Grant Probability
55%
With Interview (+33.3%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 14 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month