CTNF 18/452,082 CTNF 100550 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-14, drawn to an electrolyte for a lithium-ion battery in the reply filed on May 19 th , 2026 is acknowledged. 08-06 AIA Claim s 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected lithium-ion battery , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 19 th , 2026 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 14 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. Regarding claim 14, the instant claim recites “…the diethyl carbonate is used in an amount of 75 to 85 vol% based on a total weight of the solvent used in the electrolyte.” It is unclear how the volume percent of diethyl carbonate can be determined with respect to the total weight of the solvent, as volume and weight have different units. The Examiner believes this should be written as based on a total volume of the solvent used in the electrolyte, consistent with the recitation of fluoroethylene carbonate being based on a total volume of the solvent used in the electrolyte. For the purposes of Examination, the instant claim limitation is interpreted as the diethyl carbonate is used in an amount of 75 to 85 vol% based on a total volume of the solvent used in the electrolyte. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3-4, 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oh (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20240088438 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Oh teaches an electrolyte for a lithium-ion battery (Paragraph 0002) comprising: a lithium salt (Paragraphs 0013, 0051); a phosphorus-containing additive ( first additive ) (Paragraph 0007, 0010); and a solvent ( solvent and second additive ) (Paragraphs 0015 and 0019-0020). Regarding claim 3, Oh teaches the electrolyte of claim 1, where the lithium salt is lithium hexafluorophosphate ( LiPF 6 ), lithium perchlorate ( LiClO 4 ), lithium hexafluoroarsenate ( LiAsF 6 ), lithium tetrafluoroborate ( LiBF 6 ), lithium bis(trifluoro-methanesulfonyl)imide ( LiN(CF 3 SO 2 ) 2 ), lithium(fluorosulfonyl)imide ( LiN(C 2 F 5 SO 2 ) 2 ), lithium bis(oxalato)borate ( LiC 4 BO 8 ) (Paragraph 0051). Regarding claim 4, Oh teaches the electrolyte of claim 1, where the lithium salt is lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF 6 ) (Paragraph 0051). Oh teaches a specific embodiment in which the lithium salt in the electrolyte in LiPF 6 (Examples 1-3) (Paragraphs 0089, 0094, 0099). Regarding claim 7, Oh teaches the electrolyte of claim 1, where the phosphorus-containing additive ( first additive ) is an organophosphite, an organophosphate, an organophosphonite, an organophosphonate, or a combination thereof (Paragraph 0053). Regarding claim 8, Oh teaches the electrolyte of claim 7, where the organophosphite and organophosphinite is a triphenyl phosphite and a tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) phosphite, or a combination thereof (Paragraph 0053). Regarding claim 9, Oh teaches the electrolyte of claim 7, where the organophosphate is a trimethyl phosphate, a triphenyl phosphate, a triethyl phosphate, and a tris (2,2,2,-trifluoroethyl)phosphate, or a combination thereof (Paragraph 0053). Regarding claim 10, Oh teaches the electrolyte of claim 7, where the organophosphonate is a dimethyl methylphosphonate (Paragraph 0053). Regarding claim 11, Oh teaches the electrolyte of claim 1, where the phosphorus-containing additive is a tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) phosphite (Paragraph 0053). Regarding claim 12, Oh teaches the electrolyte of claim 1, where the solvent ( solvent and second additive ) is diethyl carbonate, 1,2-dimethoxyethane, ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate (Paragraph 0050), fluoroethylene carbonate, vinyl ethylene carbonate, vinylene carbonate, or a combination thereof (Paragraph 0055). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-27-aia AIA Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(2 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Oh . Regarding claim 13, Oh teaches the electrolyte of claim 1, where the solvent comprises diethyl carbonate and fluoroethylene carbonate (Paragraphs 0050 and 0055) or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select both diethyl carbonate and fluoroethylene carbonate from the finite lists of possible combinations for solvent and the second additive, respectively, to arrive at the solvent components of the instant claim since the combination of components would have yielded predictable results as an electrolyte solution, absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh as applied to claim 1, 3-4, 7-12 above . Regarding claim 2, Oh teaches the electrolyte of claim 1. Oh teaches the concentration of the electrolyte salt may be between 1M and 3M (Paragraph 0051). In Example 1, Oh teaches: “Ethylene carbonate and ethyl methyl carbonate were mixed in a volume ratio of about 3:7, and a lithium salt (LiPF6 ) of about 1 M was added to prepare a mixture. To the mixture, about 1 wt % of fluoroethylene carbonate and about 5 wt % of propane-2,2-diylbis(4,1-phenylene) difluorosulfate were added to form an electrolyte” (Paragraph 0089). While in Example 1 of Oh the first additive is embodied by propane-2,2-diylbis(4,1-phenylene) difluorosulfate, Oh discloses that the first additive may include any of a phosphorous containing additive such as triphenyl phosphite, tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) phosphite, dimethyl methylphosphonate, trimethyl phosphate, triphenyl phosphate, triethyl phosphate, or tris (2,2,2,-trifluoroethyl)phosphate (Paragraph 0053), which could be substituted in Example 1 as the composition of the first additive according to the teachings of Oh. The weight percent of the lithium salt based on the total weight of the electrolyte is calculated as follows: Taking a 1 L basis: 1 M LiPF 6 = x moles / 1 L solution 1 mole LiPF 6 * 151.91 g/mol LiPF 6 151.91 g LiPF 6 in solution Ethylene Carbonate (EC) : Ethyl Methyl Carbonate (EMC) = 3:7 in 1 L solution 300 mL EC * 1.321 g/mL EC = 396.3 g EC 700 mL EMC * 1.006 g/mL EMC = 704.2 g EMC Total weight of solution: 151.91 g LiPF 6 + 396.3 g EC + 704.2 g EMC = 1252.41 g 1 wt% of fluoroethylene carbonate added: (0.01 * 1252.41 g) = 12.52 g fluoroethylene carbonate 5 wt% of propane-2,2-diylbis(4,1-phenylene) difluorosulfate added: (0.05 * 1252.41) = 62.62 g propane-2,2-diylbis(4,1-phenylene) difluorosulfate Final weight percent of LiPF 6 in solution: 151.91 g LiPF 6 / (1252.41 g + 12.52 g fluoroethylene carbonate + 62.62 g propane-2,2-diylbis(4,1-phenylene) difluorosulfate) = 11.4 wt% LiPF 6 based on 100 wt% of the electrolyte Thus, as calculated above, Oh teaches that when concentration of the lithium salt in the electrolyte solution is 1M, the weight percent of the lithium salt based on the total weight of the electrolyte (additionally comprising a solvent and a first additive) may suitably be 11.4 wt%, as exemplified in Example 1 of Oh. According to the teachings above, Oh also teaches the concentration of the lithium salt in the electrolyte solution may be 3M. According to these teachings, if 3M of lithium salt was implemented in Example 1 of Oh, the concentration of LiPF 6 in the electrolyte would be determined to be: Taking a 1 L basis: 3 M LiPF 6 = x moles / 1 L solution 3 mole LiPF 6 * 151.91 g/mol LiPF 6 455.73 g LiPF 6 in solution Ethylene Carbonate (EC) : Ethyl Methyl Carbonate (EMC) = 3:7 300 mL EC * 1.321 g/mL EC = 396.3 g EC 700 mL EMC * 1.006 g/mL EMC = 704.2 g EMC Total weight of solution: 455.73 g LiPF 6 + 396.3 g EC + 704.2 g EMC = 1556.23 g 1 wt% of fluoroethylene carbonate added: (0.01 * 1556.23 g) = 15.56 g fluoroethylene carbonate 5 wt% of propane-2,2-diylbis(4,1-phenylene) difluorosulfate added: (0.05 * 1556.23) = 77.81 g propane-2,2-diylbis(4,1-phenylene) difluorosulfate Final weight percent of LiPF 6 in solution: 455.73 g LiPF 6 / (1556.23 g + 15.56 g fluoroethylene carbonate + 77.81 g propane-2,2-diylbis(4,1-phenylene) difluorosulfate) = 27.6 wt% LiPF 6 based on 100 wt% of the electrolyte The range of the amount of lithium salt present in the electrolyte based on the total weight of the electrolyte of Oh ( 1M to 3M, corresponding to 11.44 wt% - 27.6 wt% as exemplified by Example 1 ) lies within the range of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Regarding claim 5, Oh teaches the electrolyte of claim 1. Oh teaches the phosphorus-containing additive ( first additive ) is present in the electrolyte in an amount of 0.5 wt% to 30 wt% based on the electrolyte (Paragraph 0054). The range of the amount of phosphorous-containing additive of Oh overlaps with that of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Regarding claim 6, Oh teaches the electrolyte of claim 3. As described above, Oh teaches the phosphorus-containing additive ( first additive ) is present in the electrolyte in an amount of 0.5 wt% to 30 wt% based on the electrolyte, particularly 0.5 wt% to 10 wt%. (Paragraph 0054). The range of the amount of phosphorous-containing additive of Oh overlaps with that of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05 (I) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh as applied to claim 1-13 above, and further in view of Jeong (W.O. 2024136530 A1) (machine translation relied upon) . Regarding claim 14, Oh teaches the electrolyte of claim 13. As discussed above in the rejection of claim 13, Oh teaches the solvent comprises diethyl carbonate and fluoroethylene carbonate. Oh is silent as to the diethyl carbonate is used in an amount of 75 to 85 vol%, based on a total weight of the solvent used in the electrolyte, and where the fluoroethylene carbonate is used in an amount of 15 to 25 vol%, based on a total volume of the solvent used in the electrolyte. However, Jeong discloses an electrolyte composition for a lithium secondary battery (Paragraph 5), including a lithium salt, organic solvent, and additive (Paragraph 13). Jeong teaches the lithium salt including hexafluorophosphate ( LiPF 6 ), lithium perchlorate ( LiClO 4 ), lithium hexafluoroarsenate ( LiAsF 6 ), lithium tetrafluoroborate ( LiBF 6 ), lithium bis(trifluoro-methanesulfonyl)imide ( LiN(CF 3 SO 2 ) 2 ), lithium(fluorosulfonyl)imide ( LiN(C 2 F 5 SO 2 ) 2 ), lithium bis(oxalato)borate ( LiC 4 BO 8 ) (Paragraph 98) present at a concentration of 1 M to 3 M, overlapping with the exemplary salts and concentrations disclosed by Oh and the instant disclosure. Jeong discloses phosphate-based and phosphite-based compounds as additives to the electrolyte solution (Paragraph 153), including tris(trimethylsilyl) phosphite, and tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) phosphate and tris(trifluoroethyl) phosphite (Paragraph 158), overlapping with the exemplary phosphate-containing additive disclosed by Oh and the instant disclosure. Notably, Jeong discloses that the organic solvent of the electrolyte includes fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) and diethyl carbonate (DEC) (Paragraph 102). Jeong teaches the volume ratio of fluoroethylene carbonate to diethylene carbonate is 5:95 to 25:75 (Paragraph 103). Thus, given the solvent comprises diethyl carbonate and fluoroethylene carbonate, when the total volume of solvent is considered to be 100 vol.%, the volume of fluoroethylene carbonate is taught by Jeong to be between 5 to 25 vol.% and the volume of diethylene carbonate is taught by Jeong to be between 75 to 95 vol.%. Jeong teaches that when the volume content of FEC and DEC are within the aforementioned ranges, a sufficient SEI film is smoothly formed (Paragraph 105). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the solvent of Oh to incorporate the teachings of Jeong in which the volume of fluoroethylene carbonate is between 5 to 25 vol.% and the volume of diethylene carbonate is between 75 to 95 vol.% based on a total volume of the solvent used in the electrolyte. Doing so would advantageously result in a sufficient SEI film that is smoothly formed, as recognized by Jeong. The result of the modification of Oh in view of Jeong comprising diethyl carbonate and fluoroethylene carbonate in a range of volume percents which overlaps with the instant claimed range. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the claimed limitations are met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM. 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. The 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/docOh for information about filing in DOCOH 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. /O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789 /MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/452,082 Page 2 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/452,082 Page 3 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/452,082 Page 4 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/452,082 Page 5 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/452,082 Page 7 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/452,082 Page 8 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/452,082 Page 9 Art Unit: 1789
Prosecution Insights