DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
2. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
a. In paragraphs [0017] and [0018], Formula 4 and Formula 5, respectively, are regarded as two different compounds as described in paragraph [0014], however, the formulas shown are identical.
b. In paragraphs [0052] and [0053], Formula 4 and Formula 5, respectively, are regarded as two different compounds but the formulas shown are identical.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claim 2 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.
As to claim 2, claim 2 recites that the formula described in claim 1 that is used within the electrolyte can be any one of four formulas labeled from formula 2 to formula 5. However, formula 4 and formula 5 as shown within claim 2 appear to be the same formula and are hereby included below for reference. For purposes of examination, claim 2 is dependent upon claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
273
878
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
248
810
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koh et al. (WO-2010110290-A1, disclosed in IDS mailed on 25 September 2025, machine translation is used for rejection below).
As to claim 1, Koh discloses an electrolyte (page 1 lines 50-55), the electrolyte comprising a compound as shown in formula 1 (page 1 lines 50-55),
PNG
media_image3.png
115
249
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 is selected from any one of C1-C6 fully or partially substituted fluoroalkyl (page 1 lines 50-55), and R2 and R3 are independently selected from any one of hydrogen atom, alkane, phenyl, alkylbenzene, or methoxysilane respectively (page 1 lines 50-55).
As to claim 9, Koh discloses the electrolyte as disclosed within claim 1, and further discloses wherein the electrolyte also comprises a lithium salt (page 1 lines 50-55), the lithium salt comprising any one of a combination of at least two of LiPF6, LiClO4, LiBF4, LiPO2F2, LiODFB, LiTFSI and LiFSI (page 2 line 5).
As to claim 10, Koh discloses the electrolyte as disclosed within claim 9, and further discloses wherein the lithium salt is LiPF6 (page 2 line 5).
As to claim 12, Koh discloses the electrolyte as disclosed within claim 1, and further discloses wherein the electrolyte also comprises an organic solvent (page 2 lines 34-36), the organic solvent comprising at least two of ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, methyl ethyl carbonate, propylene sulfite, ethyl acetate, diethyl sulfite, and 1,3-propanesultone (page 2 lines 34-36, page 2 lines 53-59).
As to claim 13, Koh discloses the electrolyte as disclosed within claim 12, and further discloses wherein the organic solvent comprises at least two of ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate and ethyl methyl carbonate (page 2 lines 34-36, page 3 lines 53-59).
As to claim 17, Koh discloses a lithium-ion battery (page 4 lines 39-41) wherein the lithium-ion battery comprises a positive electrode sheet (page 4 lines 39-41), a negative electrode sheet (page 4 lines 39-41), a separator (page 4 lines 39-41) and an electrolyte (page 4 lines 39-41), the electrolyte comprising a compound as shown in formula 1 (page 1 lines 50-55),
PNG
media_image3.png
115
249
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 is selected from any one of C1-C6 fully or partially substituted fluoroalkyl (page 1 lines 50-55), and R2 and R3 are independently selected from any one of hydrogen atom, alkane, phenyl, alkylbenzene, or methoxysilane respectively (page 1 lines 50-55).
As to claim 18, Koh discloses the lithium-ion battery as disclosed within claim 17, and further discloses wherein the positive electrode sheet comprises a positive current collector (page 5 lines 56-60) and a cathode material (page 4 lines 43-46) provided on the positive current collector (page 5 lines 56-60); and the cathode material comprises positive electrode active substance (page 4 lines 43-46), the positive electrode active substance comprising lithium iron phosphate (page 4 lines 55-56).
As to claim 19, Koh discloses the lithium-ion battery as disclosed within claim 17, and further discloses wherein the negative electrode sheet comprises a negative current collector (page 6 lines 4-8) and an anode material (page 5 lines 11-21) provided on the negative current collector (page 6 lines 4-8).
As to claim 20, Koh discloses the lithium-ion battery as disclosed within claim 19, and further discloses wherein the anode material comprises negative electrode active substance (page 5 lines 11-21), the negative electrode active substance comprising graphite (page 5 lines 11-21).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koh et al. (WO-2010110290-A1, disclosed in IDS mailed on 25 September 2025, machine translation is used for rejection below) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Fujimoto et al. (JP-2003346899-A, disclosed in IDS mailed on 25 September 2025, machine translation is used for rejection below).
As to claim 3, Koh discloses the electrolyte as disclosed within claim 1, however, Koh does not disclose wherein a mass fraction of the compound as shown in formula 1 in the electrolyte is 0.1~0.5%.
Fujimoto discloses an electrolyte used within a lithium battery, wherein the electrolyte has an amide fluoride compound that is similar in structure to the compound as shown in formula 1 with the mass fraction of the compound in the electrolyte being 0.1~0.5% [0043]. The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte as disclosed within Koh to further require that the weight fraction of the compound as shown in formula 1 be 0.1~0.5% within the electrolyte as disclosed within Fujimoto.
As to claim 4, Koh discloses the electrolyte as disclosed within claim 3, however, Koh does not disclose wherein a mass fraction of the compound as shown in formula 1 in the electrolyte is 0.1~0.3%.
Fujimoto discloses an electrolyte used within a lithium battery, wherein the electrolyte has an amide fluoride compound that is similar in structure to the compound as shown in formula 1 with the mass fraction of the compound in the electrolyte being 0.1~0.3% [0043]. The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrolyte as disclosed within Koh to additionally require that the weight fraction of the compound as shown in formula 1 be 0.1~0.3% within the electrolyte as disclosed within Fujimoto.
9. Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koh et al. (WO-2010110290-A1, disclosed in IDS mailed on 25 September 2025, machine translation is used for rejection below) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Miyagi et al. (US-20100015514-A1).
As to claim 5, Koh discloses the electrolyte as disclosed within claim 1, and further discloses wherein the electrolyte also comprises an additive (page 2 lines 34-36). However, Koh does not disclose wherein the additive is comprising vinylidene carbonate, tris (trimethylsilyl phosphite), and vinyl sulfate.
Miyagi discloses a lithium battery having an electrolyte, wherein the electrolyte further includes additives comprising vinylidene carbonate [1103] to function as a negative-electrode coating agent [1149], tris (trimethylsilyl) phosphite [1141] to improve the balance between cycle characteristics and high-temperature storability [1209], and vinyl sulfate [1103] and [1243] to function as additional active material [0096].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte as disclosed within Koh to further have the electrolyte include vinylidene carbonate, tris (trimethylsilyl) phosphite, and vinyl sulfate to improve various qualities of the electrolyte as disclosed within Miyagi.
As to claim 6, Koh discloses the electrolyte as disclosed within claim 5, however, Koh does not disclose wherein a mass fraction if the vinylidene carbonate in the electrolyte is 0.3~3.5%.
Miyagi discloses a lithium battery having an electrolyte, wherein the electrolyte further includes vinylidene carbonate with a mass fraction of 0.3~3.5% [1103]. The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrolyte as disclosed within Koh to additionally require that the vinylidene carbonate has a mass fraction of 0.3~3.5% within the electrolyte as disclosed within Miyagi.
As to claim 7, Koh discloses the electrolyte as disclosed within claim 5, however, Koh does not disclose wherein a mass fraction of the tris(trimethylsilyl) phosphite in the electrolyte is 0.3~3.5%.
Miyagi discloses a lithium battery having an electrolyte, wherein the electrolyte further includes tris(trimethylsilyl) phosphite with a mass fraction of 0.3~3.5% [1147]. The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrolyte as disclosed within Koh to additionally require that the tris(trimethylsilyl) phosphite has a mass fraction of 0.3~3.5% within the electrolyte as disclosed within Miyagi.
As to claim 8, Koh discloses the electrolyte as disclosed within claim 5, however, Koh does not disclose wherein a mass fraction of the vinyl sulfate in the electrolyte is 0.3~3.5%.
Miyagi discloses a lithium battery having an electrolyte, wherein the electrolyte further includes vinyl sulfate with a mass fraction of 0.3~3.5% [1103]. The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrolyte as disclosed within Koh to additionally require that the vinyl sulfate has a mass fraction of 0.3~3.5% within the electrolyte as disclosed within Miyagi.
10. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koh et al. (WO-2010110290-A1, disclosed in IDS mailed on 25 September 2025, machine translation is used for rejection below) as applied to claim 9, and further in view of Shen et al. (CN-108123175-A, disclosed in IDS mailed on 25 September 2025, machine translation is used for rejection below).
As to claim 11, Koh discloses the electrolyte as disclosed within claim 9, however, Koh does not disclose wherein a mass fraction of the lithium salt in the electrolyte is 8~12%.
Shen discloses a lithium battery having an electrolyte, wherein the mass fraction of the lithium salt in the electrolyte is 8~12% (page 6 lines 2-3). The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte as disclosed within Koh to additionally require that the lithium salt has a mass fraction of 8~12% within the electrolyte as disclosed within Shen.
11. Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koh et al. (WO-2010110290-A1, disclosed in IDS mailed on 25 September 2025, machine translation is used for rejection below) as applied to claim 13, and further in view of Shen et al. (CN-108123175-A, disclosed in IDS mailed on 25 September 2025, machine translation is used for rejection below).
As to claim 14, Koh discloses the electrolyte as disclosed within claim 13, however, Koh does not disclose wherein a mass fraction of the ethylene carbonate in the electrolyte is 20~30%.
Shen discloses a lithium battery having an electrolyte, wherein the mass fraction of the ethylene carbonate in the electrolyte is 20~30% (page 8 lines 55-60). The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte as disclosed within Koh to additionally require that the ethylene carbonate has a mass fraction of 20~30% within the electrolyte as disclosed within Shen.
As to claim 15, Koh discloses the electrolyte as disclosed within claim 13, however, Koh does not disclose wherein a mass fraction of the methyl ethyl carbonate in the electrolyte is 30~40%.
Shen discloses a lithium battery having an electrolyte, wherein the mass fraction of the methyl ethyl carbonate in the electrolyte is 30~40% (page 10 lines 23-26). The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte as disclosed within Koh to additionally require that the methyl ethyl carbonate has a mass fraction of 30~40% within the electrolyte as disclosed within Shen.
As to claim 16, Koh discloses the electrolyte as disclosed within claim 13, however, Koh does not disclose wherein a mass fraction of the dimethyl carbonate in the electrolyte is 30~50%.
Shen discloses a lithium battery having an electrolyte, wherein the mass fraction of the dimethyl carbonate in the electrolyte is 30~50% (page 10 lines 23-26). The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte as disclosed within Koh to additionally require that the dimethyl carbonate has a mass fraction of 30~50% within the electrolyte as disclosed within Shen.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
13. The prior art reference does not disclose wherein the electrolyte comprises any one of the compounds as shown in Formula 2 to Formula 5 which are repeated here below.
PNG
media_image4.png
256
931
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
261
994
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
273
878
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
248
810
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB JEROME SCHULER whose telephone number is (571)272-8487. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 5712721330. 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.
/J.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights