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 .
2. The Applicant's amendments filed on June 30, 2025, were received. Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended. Claim 10 has been cancelled. None of the Claims have been withdrawn from consideration or added as new. Therefore, Claims 1-9 and 11-17 are pending in this office action.
3. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action issued on February 26, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The rejection of Claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US 2022/0271341 A1) in view of Ji et al. (US 2020/0388876 A1), has been overcome based on the amendments to the Claims and the arguments presented on pages 7-8 of the Remarks dated May 14, 2026.
5. Claims 1-9 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US 2022/0271341 A1) in view of Ji et al. (US 2020/0388876 A1) and in further view of Lee et al. (KR20210055604A).
With regard to Claims 1-8, Zhou et al. disclose an electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent (paragraphs 0088-0089), a lithium salt (paragraphs 0048, 0089), and an additive comprising ethyl propionate and fluoroethylene carbonate (paragraphs 0026, 0029-0032), the fluoroethylene carbonate meeting the claimed limitations (in Claims 1, 7-8) of a cyclic carbonate compound, more specifically, having the specific structure represented by Chemical Formula 3:
PNG
media_image1.png
108
90
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Zhou et al. also disclose the further use of a trinitrile compound additive represented by Chemical Formula 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
148
202
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, wherein R5 to R14 unsubstituted C1 to C5 alkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C5 alkoxy group, a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C12 aryl group, or a combination thereof, n1 to n3 are each independently one selected from integers of 0 to 20, n1+n2+n3≥1, and m1 to m3 are each independently one selected from integers of 0 to 2, more specifically, wherein n1 to n3 are different integers (meeting Claim 5), and are selected from 1,3,5-hexanetricarbonitrile and 1,2,3-tris(2-cyanoethoxy)propane (meeting Claim 6) (paragraph 0046).
Zhou et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the additive comprises a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1:
PNG
media_image3.png
84
260
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein L¹ and L² are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkylene group, and R¹ to R4 are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkyl 20 group, a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C10 alkenyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C10 alkynyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C3 to C10 cycloalkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C3 to C10 cycloalkenyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C3 to C10 cycloalkynyl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C20 aryl group.
Ji et al. disclose an electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery in which the electrolyte may further comprise one or more additives (paragraph 0066). Ji et al. disclose wherein the additive can be a silicon compound having a structure
PNG
media_image4.png
74
124
media_image4.png
Greyscale
more specifically, wherein L¹ and L² are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted C3 to C10 alkylene group (meeting Claim 2), wherein R¹ to R4 are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkyl group (meeting Claim 3), and wherein the silicon compound is
PNG
media_image5.png
90
226
media_image5.png
Greyscale
1,3-bis(3-cyanoproyl)tetramethyl disiloxane (meeting Claim 4) (paragraphs 0122-0123). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrolyte of Zhou et al. to include the additive represented by Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image3.png
84
260
media_image3.png
Greyscale
because Ji et al. teach that the presence of silicon compounds in the electrolyte additive can result in a SEI and/or CEI layer on the surface of electrodes with improved performance, such as demonstrating improved chemical stability and increased density, and facilitating reduction in capacity fade and/or generation of excessive gaseous byproducts during operation of the lithium ion battery, as well as, improved cycling stability and rate capability (paragraph 0126).
Neither Zhou et al. nor Ji et al. disclose wherein the second compound is included in an amount of 3.0 part by weight to about 5.0 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery.
Lee et al. disclose a non-aqueous electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery comprising an additive of 1,3,6-hexane tricarbonitrile (HTCN) to further improve the positive electrode prortection and leaching inhibition effects (paragraph 0094). Lee et al. disclose wherein the 1,3,6-hexane tricarbonitrile (HTCN) is included in an amount of 0.1 to 3% by weight of the total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte (paragraphs 0095-0097). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvous to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrolyte of Zhou et al. and Ji et al. to include the second compound in an amount of 3.0 part by weight to about 5.0 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery, because Lee et al. teach that this range can effectively suppress gas generation under high voltage and high temperature conditions, thereby improving high-temperature strorage and lifespan characteristics (paragraph 0097).
With regard to Claim 9, Ji et al. disclose the first compound is included in an amount of less than 10% by weight (paragraph 0066), which meets the claimed limitation of about 0.5 parts by weight to about 3.0 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery.
With regard to Claim 11, Zhou et al. disclose wherein the third compound is included in an amount of about 3.0 parts by weight to about 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery (paragraphs 0029-0032).
With regard to Claim 12, Lee et al. disclose wherein the second compound is included in an amount of less than 3.0% by weight (paragraphs 0095-0097) and Ji et al. disclose the first compound is included in an amount of less than 10% by weight (paragraph 0066), but none of Zhou et al., Ji et al. nor Lee et al. specifically disclose wherein a total weight of the first compound and the second compound is about 2.0 parts by weight to about 6.0 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery. The specific amount of the first and second compound in the electrolyte is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. In the electrolyte, stability and cost of manufacturing are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said amount of first and second compound in the electrolyte, with the stability and manufacturing cost both increasing as the amount of first and second compound in the electrolyte is increased, the precise amount of first and second compound in the electrolyte would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of first and second compound in the electrolyte of Zhou et al., Ji et al. and Lee et al. to obtain the desired balance between the stability and cost of manufacturing (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
With regard to Claim 13, Lee et al. disclose wherein the second compound is included in an amount of 3.0% by weight (paragraphs 0095-0097) and Ji et al. disclose the first compound is included in an amount of less than 10% by weight (paragraph 0066), but none of Zhou et al., Ji et al. nor Lee et al. specifically disclose wherein the first compound and the second compound are mixed together in a weight ratio of about 1:0.5 to about 1:5. The specific weight ratio of the first and second compound in the electrolyte is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. In the electrolyte, stability and cost of manufacturing are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said weight ratio of first and second compound in the electrolyte, with the stability and manufacturing cost both increasing as the weight ratio of first and second compound in the electrolyte is increased, the precise weight ratio of first and second compound in the electrolyte would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the weight ratio of first and second compound in the electrolyte of Zhou et al., Ji et al. and Lee et al. to obtain the desired balance between the stability and cost of manufacturing (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
With regard to Claim 14, Lee et al. disclose wherein the second compound is included in an amount of 3.0% by weight (paragraphs 0095-0097) and Ji et al. disclose the first compound is included in an amount of less than 10% by weight (paragraph 0066), but none of Zhou et al.. Ji et al. nor Lee et al. specifically disclose wherein the composition is included in an amount of about 5.0 parts by weight to about 15 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery. The specific composition amount is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. In the electrolyte, stability and cost of manufacturing are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said composition amount in the electrolyte, with the stability and manufacturing cost both increasing as the composition amount is increased, the precise composition amount in the electrolyte would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the composition amount in the electrolyte of Zhou et al., Ji et al. and Lee et al. to obtain the desired balance between the stability and cost of manufacturing (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
With regard to Claim 15, Zhou et al. disclose a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material; a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material; and the electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery noted above (paragraphs 0053-0054).
With regard to Claim 16, Zhou et al. disclose wherein the negative electrode active material comprises a carbon-based negative electrode active material (paragraphs 0072-0078).
With regard to Claim 17, Zhou et al. disclose wherein the rechargeable battery has an upper limit voltage of 4.2 V (paragraphs 0101-0107), but do not specifically disclose wherein the rechargeable lithium battery has a charging upper limit voltage of greater than or equal to about 4.5 V. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a rechargeable lithium battery having a charging upper limit voltage of greater than or equal to about 4.5 V, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed May 14, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US 2022/0271341 A1) in view of Ji et al. (US 2020/0388876 A1), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lee et al. (KR20210055604A).
Conclusion
7. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIE O APICELLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 5:00PM 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/KARIE O'NEILL APICELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights