Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/241,199

Electrolyte and Lithium-ion Battery

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Aug 31, 2023
Examiner
RAYMOND, BRITTANY L
Art Unit
1722
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Eve Power Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
774 granted / 1006 resolved
+11.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
1039
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
52.8%
+12.8% vs TC avg
§102
18.2%
-21.8% vs TC avg
§112
16.3%
-23.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1006 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 § 102 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. Claim(s) 1, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (CN Publication 113549047) . Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses an electrolyte comprising: additives and a solvent mixture, wherein one of the additives can be a fluoro alkyl sultone having the structure of compound 23, which matches that of claim 1 of the present invention (Paragraphs 0032, 0056). As to claim 7, Liu teaches that the electrolyte can include a salt, such as LiPF6 (Paragraph 0056). Regarding claims 9 and 10, Liu states that the solvent mixture can include ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, and propyl propionate (Paragraph 0056). As to claim 13, Liu discloses that the diethyl carbonate is added in an amount of 40 wt % (Paragraph 0056). Regarding claim 14, Liu teaches that the electrolyte is used in a lithium ion battery comprising a positive electrode, a separator, and a negative electrode (Paragraph 0059). As to claim 17, Liu states that the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode slurry coated on a positive electrode current collector (Paragraph 0052). Regarding claims 19 and 20, Liu discloses that the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode slurry coated on a negative electrode current collector, wherein the slurry can comprise a graphite active material (Paragraph 0054). Liu teaches every limitation of claims 1, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, 19 and 20 of the present invention and thus anticipates the claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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) 2, 3, 15, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN Publication 113549047) in view of Ohashi (JP Publication 2014-026917) . The teachings of Liu have been discussed in paragraph 3 above. Liu fails to disclose that the mass fraction of the fluorosultone compound in the electrolyte is 0.1-1.5%, or 0.5-1.0%, and that the positive electrode active material can be lithium iron manganese phosphate. Ohashi discloses an electrolyte for an electrochemical device, the electrolyte comprising: a non-aqueous solvent, such as ethylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, etc.; an electrolyte, such as LiPF6; and a fluorine atom-containing cyclic sulfonic acid ester, such as 1,4-butanesultone in which one or more hydrogen atoms are substituted with fluorine atoms (Paragraphs 0012, 0013, 0020, 0025). Regarding claims 2, 3, 15 and 16, Ohashi teaches that the content of the fluorine-containing cyclic sulfonic acid ester is 0.1 to 70 parts by mass based on 100 parts by mass of the total amount of the non-aqueous solvent and electrolyte (Paragraph 0031). As to claim 18, Ohashi discloses that the electrochemical device also comprises a positive electrode including an active material, such as a lithium-containing metal phosphate compound shown in formula 7b, where M is one or more transition metal element (Paragraph 0039). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the mass fraction of the fluoro alkyl sultone of Liu in the electrolyte could be 0.5-1.0% because Ohashi teaches that when fluorine-containing sultones are added to electrolyte in this amount it provides for long-term durability. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the positive electrode active material of Liu could be a lithium iron manganese phosphate because Ohashi teaches that lithium transition metal phosphates are common alternatives to lithium transition metal oxides used as positive electrode active materials. Claim (s) 4-6, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN Publication 113549047) in view of Cho (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0119398) . The teachings of Liu have been discussed in paragraph 3 above. Liu fails to disclose that the electrolyte also includes additives vinylidene carbonate (VC) and lithium bis(oxalate)borate ( LiBOB ), that the amount of VC in the electrolyte is 0.1-3 wt % and the amount of LiBOB is 0.1-3%, that the amount of VC in the electrolyte is 1-2 wt % and the amount of LiBOB is 0.1-0.5 wt %, that the mass fraction of ethylene carbonate in the electrolyte is 30-40%, and that the mass fraction of the ethyl methyl carbonate in the electrolyte is 30-40%. Regarding claim 4, Cho discloses an electrolyte for a secondary battery comprising: a lithium salt; a non-aqueous organic solvent; and a bisfluorophosphite multicyclic compound, wherein the electrolyte also comprises additives, such as vinylidene carbonate, lithium bis(oxalate)borate, and fluorine-containing butane sultone (Paragraphs 0017-0020, 0027, 0028). As to claims 5 and 6, Cho teaches that the additive may be included at 0.1 to 5 wt % based on the total weight of the electrolyte (Paragraph 0029). Regarding claims 11 and 12, Cho discloses that the non-aqueous organic solvent may have a mixed volume ratio of linear carbonate solvent:cyclic carbonate solvent of 1:1 to 9:1, wherein the linear carbonate solvent can be diethyl carbonate and ethyl methyl carbonate, and the cyclic carbonate can be ethylene carbonate (Paragraphs 00 30 -00 31 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the electrolyte of Liu can include other additives, such as vinylidene carbonate and LiBOB , because Cho teaches that these additives improve the life of the battery. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the VC and LiBOB could be added in the amount recited in claims 5 and 6 of the present invention because Cho teaches that the mixture of additives total to an amount of 0.1 to 5 wt % of the electrolyte, which can be split into these ranges for each additive. Finally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the mass fraction of ethylene carbonate and ethyl methyl carbonate in the electrolyte of Liu can each be 30-40 wt % because Cho teaches that the linear to cyclic ratio of the carbonates can be about equal or the linear is much greater, which can result in the amounts of ethylene carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, and diethyl carbonate being about equal. Claim (s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN Publication 113549047) . The teachings of Liu have been discussed in paragraph 3 above. Liu fails to specifically state that the mass fraction of the lithium s al t in the electrolyte is 8-12%. Liu discloses that the concentration of the LiPF6 in the electrolyte is 1.1 mol/L (Paragraph 0056). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that by changing the 1.1 molarity of the salt of Liu to weight percent using the molecular weight of the salt, the solution volume, and the density of the solution, the weight percent would fall within 8-12% . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRITTANY L RAYMOND whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6545 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9 am-6 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-3433 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT BRITTANY L. RAYMOND Primary Examiner Art Unit 1722 /BRITTANY L RAYMOND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 31, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603324
LOCALIZED HIGH SALT CONCENTRATION ELECTROLYTE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598747
FABRICATING THREE-DIMENSIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR STRUCTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592434
Apparatus and Method for Shaping Pouch Film for Secondary Batteries
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586807
FUEL CELL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585192
IMPRINT METHOD FOR FABRICATION OF LOW DENSITY NANOPORE MEMBRANE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 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
77%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+10.9%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1006 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