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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-12, 14, 15, 24, 26-27, 43, and 70 in the reply filed on 04/01/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-12, 14, and 70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 01/35483.
Regarding claims 1-6, 9-12, 14, and 70 WO 01/35483 teaches a lithium battery with an electrolyte including a capacity-enhancing reactive component (abstract). The reference teaches the component additive to be bis(methoxyethyl)disulfide; bis(N,N-dimethylaminoethyl)disulfide; or bis(N,N-diethylaminoethyl)disulfide (pg 11, lines 12-22 and examples 2 and 8).
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.
Claim(s) 15, 24, and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 01/035483.
Regarding claim 15, 24, 26, and 27, WO 01/35483 teaches a lithium battery with an electrolyte including a capacity-enhancing reactive component (abstract). The reference teaches the component additive to be bis(methoxyethyl)disulfide; bis(N,N-dimethylaminoethyl)disulfide; or bis(N,N-diethylaminoethyl)disulfide (pg 11, lines 12-22 and examples 2 and 8), as discussed above.
WO 01/35483 does not explicitly teach the additive amount in the electrolyte, as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize any amount, such as the claimed amount, dependent upon the desired functionality of the electrolyte without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, and 43 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art is considered to be WO 01/35483, as discussed above.
WO 01/35483 neither teaches nor renders obvious the structure of instant claims 7 and 8.
WO 01/35483 neither teaches nor renders obvious the electrolyte additive being used in a zinc battery as required by instant claim 43.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A SLIFKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/SARAH A. SLIFKA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759 July 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights