Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/275,721

Non-Aqueous Electrolyte Solution for Lithium Secondary Battery and Lithium Secondary Battery Including the Same

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 03, 2023
Examiner
HOLBROOK, MIA KEILANI
Art Unit
1724
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
LG Energy Solution, Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 0% of cases
0%
Career Allow Rate
0 granted / 0 resolved
-65.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
14
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.0%
-35.0% vs TC avg
§103
62.5%
+22.5% vs TC avg
§102
20.0%
-20.0% vs TC avg
§112
7.5%
-32.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 0 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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on August 03, 2023 and April 11, 2025 has been considered by the examiner. 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. Claims 1-8 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0013811, hereinafter Song. Regarding claims 1, 3, 7, and 8, Song teaches an electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery that consists of a lithium salt and an organic solvent mixture made of four solvents [0012]. The first solvent contains fluorine and a sulfur, the second solvent contains a linear carbonate-based compound containing fluorine (reads on claimed second solvent), the third solvent contains a linear ester-based compound containing fluorine (reads on claimed third solvent), and the fourth solvent contains a cyclic carbonate-based compound (reads on claimed first solvent) (Abstract). However, Song fails to explicitly teach the carbonate and acetate solvent having a weight ratio of 1:0.6 to 1:1 (instant claim 1 and 8) and a combined weight percent of 3.0 wt% to 30.0 wt% (instant claim 1), the carbonate solvent being 2.0 wt% to 20 wt% (instant claim 3), the acetate solvent being 1.0 wt% to 18.0 wt% (instant claim 7). Song teaches the second carbonate solvent being 80 vol% or less, the third acetate solvent being 60 vol% or less [0050]. These solvent amounts can be ‘adjusted appropriately to effectively prevent the degradation of lithium secondary batteries while securing a satisfactory flame-retardant or nonflammable level’ [0049]. Therefore, the volume percent of each solvent is an art recognized result effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the volume percents of the solvents within the non-aqueous electrolyte solution as taught by Song. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that volume percent and weight percent are directly related because they both represent concentrations of a solute in a solvent wherein volume percent is a function of weight. In optimizing these volume percents, one would arrive at the claimed relationship of ratios and weight percents, barring evidence to criticality or unexpected results. MPEP 2144.05 Regarding claim 2, Song teaches the electrolyte solution of claim 1 and that the second linear carbonate-based compound containing fluorine most preferably comprises of 2,2,2-trifluoroethylmethyl carbonate or bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) carbonate [0062]. Regarding claim 4, Song teaches the electrolyte solution of claim 1 and that the third linear ester-based compound containing fluorine is represented by Chemical Formula 3 where the R groups are independently methyl or methyl fluoride and m and n are independently an integer in a range of 0-5 [0063-0065]. This has the same structure as the claimed Formula 1 when, for Song’s Chemical Formula 3, R1 is methyl fluoride, m is 0, n is 1 and R2 is methyl. Regarding claims 5 and 6, Song teaches the electrolyte solution of claim 1 and that the third linear ester-based compound containing fluorine can be 2,2-difluoroacetate [0065]. Regarding claim 13, Song teaches the electrolyte solution of claim 1 for a lithium secondary battery. This lithium secondary battery contains an anode and cathode and their respective active materials and a separator therebetween [0071]. Regarding claims 14 and 15, Song teaches the electrolyte solution of claim 13 and the fourth cyclic carbonate-based compound being represented by Chemical Formula 4 where the X groups are each independently hydrogen, fluorine, C1-C6 alkyl, or C1-C6 alkyl fluoride [0038]. This overlaps with the claimed cyclic carbonate containing at least one of ethylene carbonate or propylene carbonate. Regarding claim 16, Song teaches the electrolyte solution of claim 14 and that the fourth solvent amount can be within the range of 10 vol % to 40 vol % or less, which overlaps with overlaps with the claimed range of 10 vol% to 70 vol% of the cyclic carbonate-based organic solvent. [0050]. In the case where the claimed ranged “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a Prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Regarding claim 17, Song teaches the electrolyte solution of claim 13 and the cathode active material can be LiNi1-x-yCoxMnyO2 which overlaps with the first lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt based oxide listed (Claim 17, line 3). Regarding claim 18, Song teaches the electrolyte solution of claim 13 and an anode active material that may consist of a graphite composite containing silicon [0078], which corresponds with the claimed negative electrode active material containing carbon and silicon. Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0013811, hereinafter Song, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0200051 (IDS dated 08/03/2023), hereinafter Lee. Regarding claims 9-12, Song teaches the electrolyte solution of claim 1 and provides the option of flame-retardant additives. However, Song fails to teach the additive is specifically 1,4-dicyano-2-butene (DCB) (reads on instant claims 9-11). Lee teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery that includes a lithium salt, an organic solvent, and an additive, wherein the additive includes 1,4-dicyano-2-butene (Abstract) (instant claims 9, 10 and 11). Lee teaches that the DCB may be included in an amount of 0.5 wt% to 3 wt% based on the total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution [0062] which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 wt% to 4.0 wt% (reads on instant claim 12). In the case where the claimed ranged “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a Prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the additive of Lee in the electrolyte solution of Song because the additive will form ‘a stable film on the surface of the positive electrode to obtain a high effect of suppressing metal ion dissolution from the positive electrode and to suppress gas generation that may occur during side reactions’ [0063]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mia K Holbrook whose telephone number is (571)272-9253. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5. 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571) 270-5256. 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. /M.K.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1724 /MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 03, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

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
Grant Probability
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 0 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