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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on July 12, 2023, August 26, 2025, December 12, 2025 and January 8, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 12-17 are 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 1 includes the limitation that the second additive “consists of 3 to 5 atoms”, such a limitation requiring that the second additive have only 3 to 5 atoms, however, the claim goes on to state that R1 and R1’ can each have 1 to 10 carbon atoms, therefore the claimed second additive could potentially have greatly more than 5 atoms. For purposes of this Office action, the limitation that the second additive consists of 3 to 5 atoms will be ignored, because it is inconsistent with all of Applicant’s inventive embodiments. Claims 2-9 and 12-17 are also rejected as depending upon claim 1.
Claim 4 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. Formulas 5 and 6 further defining the second additive in claim 4 each do not require a sulfur double bonded to two oxygen atoms and single bonded to two other atoms, but claim 1 on which claim 4 depends requires this structure in the second additive, so claim 4 is inconsistent with the requirements of claim 1.
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 1-5, 7-10, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Son (KR 20190092879; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claims 1-5 and 10, Son teaches an electrolyte solution comprising an organic solvent, a lithium salt, a first additive, and a second additive, wherein the first additive is vinylene carbonate (the specific embodiment of the first additive claimed in claim 2) present preferably in an amount of 0.05 to 5% by weight based on the total weight of the electrolyte solution, the second additive is pentaerythritol disulfate (the specific embodiment of the second additive claimed in claim 5) (machine translation at pages 3-4; see original at paragraphs [0025]-[0026] and [0035]-[0036]). Regarding claims 3 and 10, pentaerythritol disulfate is the compound in chemical formula 4 of claims 3 and 10, wherein R4 is OR6 and R6 is a C2 alkyl group, RS is R7A and R7 is a C3 alkyl group, and A =
PNG
media_image1.png
64
80
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, R4 is OR6, and R6 is a Cl alkyl group. Regarding claim 4, the compound in chemical formula 6 of claim 4, wherein A is S, X2, X2', X3, and X3' are O, and R2, R2', R3, and R3' are C1 alkylene.
Regarding claim 7, Son teaches numerous lithium salts from the claimed list, including at least LiPF₆, LiClO4, LiBF₄, and LiSbF₆ (machine translation at page 4).
Regarding claim 8, Son teaches that the organic solvent can be at least one from the group consisting of numerous of the claimed solvents, including at least ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, butylene carbonate, and vinylene carbonate (machine translation at page 4).
Regarding claim 9, Son teaches 1 to 10% by weight based on the total weight of the solvent of one or more of lithium difluorobis (oxalato) phosphate, lithium bis (oxalato) borate, lithium difluoro (oxalato) borate, lithium bis (fluorosulfonyl) imide, ethylene sulfate, and fluoroethylene carbonate (machine translation at page 5).
Regarding claim 12, Son teaches that lithium secondary battery comprising a cathode, an anode, a separator, and an electrolyte where the electrolyte is the electrolyte set forth above (machine translation at pages 5 and 10).
Regarding claim 17, with regard to the recitation “the lithium secondary battery is a battery for energy storage systems (ESSs) or as a battery for automobiles,” this claim limitation is merely intended use of the battery. The manner in which an apparatus operates is not germane to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The battery of Son set forth above is fully capable of being used as a battery for energy storage systems or for automobiles.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Son (KR 20190092879; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claims 13-16, Son teaches that the electrolyte for a secondary battery comprising the vinylene carbonate and the cyclic sulfate compound to suppress an increase of resistance during high temperature storage and enhances capacity retention rate and room temperature and high temperature lifetime characteristics (abstract), and uses an electrolyte reading on all of the claimed limitations of the instant application. Accordingly, Applicant is claiming a function of the electrolyte with respect to claims 13-16, and the composition is the same, therefore the limitations of these claims are taken to be anticipated or obvious. “Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, expressed as a 102/103 rejection.” MPEP § 2112.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (KR 20190092879; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claims 6 and 11, Son teaches that the amount of vinylene carbonate is preferably 0.05% to 5% by weight based on the total weight of the electrolyte, and that the amount of the pentaerythritol disulfate is preferably 0.05% to 5% by weight of the total weight of the electrolyte (machine translation at pages 4-5), resulting in a range of ratio of from 0.01 to 100, overlapping the claimed range. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a ratio of claimed first additive to second additive as claimed in claim 6 because Son teaches an overlapping range of this ratio (see machine translation at pages 4-5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.0
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 March 3, 2026
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749