Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/352,946

ELECTROLYTE FOR RECHARGEABLE LITHIUM BATTERY AND RECHARGEABLE LITHIUM BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 14, 2023
Examiner
APICELLA, KARIE O
Art Unit
1725
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
ULSAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
834 granted / 1040 resolved
+15.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
1093
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
45.0%
+5.0% vs TC avg
§102
36.7%
-3.3% vs TC avg
§112
16.6%
-23.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1040 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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. Claims 1-17 are pending in this office action. Priority 3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Information Disclosure Statement 4. Information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted July 14, 2023; March 25, 2024; and, April 22, 2025, have been received and considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 8. Claims 1-17 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). 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 230 220 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 316 524 media_image2.png Greyscale , wherein R5 to R14 are each independently hydrogen, a halogen, a cyano group, a substituted or 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 140 424 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 104 228 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 154 434 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 140 424 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). 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 10, Zhou et al. disclose wherein the second compound is included in an amount of less than 2.5% by weight (paragraph 0047), which meets the claimed limitation of about 1.0 part by weight to about 5.0 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery. 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, Zhou et al. disclose wherein the second compound is included in an amount of less than 2.5% by weight (paragraph 0047) and Ji et al. disclose the first compound is included in an amount of less than 10% by weight (paragraph 0066), but neither Zhou et al. nor Ji 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. and Ji 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, Zhou et al. disclose wherein the second compound is included in an amount of less than 2.5% by weight (paragraph 0047) and Ji et al. disclose the first compound is included in an amount of less than 10% by weight (paragraph 0066), but neither Zhou et al. nor Ji 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. and Ji 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, Zhou et al. disclose wherein the second compound is included in an amount of less than 2.5% by weight (paragraph 0047) and Ji et al. disclose the first compound is included in an amount of less than 10% by weight (paragraph 0066), but neither Zhou et al. nor Ji 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. and Ji 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 4.2V (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. Conclusion 9. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 14, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603364
Battery Cell, Battery, Electrical Device, and Manufacturing Method and Device for Battery Cell
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603325
ELECTROLYTE SOLUTION FOR ELECTROCHEMICAL DEVICES, PLASTIC COMPOSITION, USE AND PRODUCTION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603349
BATTERY MODULE AND BATTERY PACK INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603404
BATTERY MODULE, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING BATTERY MODULE, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND ELECTRIC VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603283
POSITIVE ELECTRODE SLURRY, SECONDARY BATTERY, BATTERY MODULE, BATTERY PACK AND POWER CONSUMING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

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
80%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+12.4%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1040 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