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 .
ELECTROLYTE FOR RECHARGEABLE LITHIUM BATTERY AND RECHARGEABLE LITHIUM BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/497,693 Art Unit: 1727 May 29, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
The Application filed on October 30, 2023 has been received. Claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 13 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. Claim 13 depends from itself and it is unclear what Applicant is intending to claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the claim will be construed to depend from claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2022/158749 A1; using US 2024/0405271 A1 as found in IDS dated 03/02/26 for citation purposes) in view of Lee et al. (KR 20160043651 A; as found in IDS dated 10/30/23 and using machine translation for citation purposes).
As to Claims 1-2, 4-7, 12 and 14, Kim discloses a lithium battery, comprising: a positive electrode having an active material; a negative electrode having an active material; and a separator impregnated with an electrolyte which has a non-aqueous organic solvent, a lithium salt, and a first additive represented by chemical formula (1) or chemical formula (2) (reads on Chemical Formula 1-1 and Chemical Formula 2-1 of the claims) (Abstract and paragraphs [0013-0019, 0100, 0115, 0129]). Kim does not specifically disclose the claimed second additive.
However, Lee teaches of a non-aqueous electrolyte for a lithium battery, comprising: an additive having formula (1) having benzene rings, which reads on claimed Chemical Formula 3 and is very close in chemical structure to claimed Chemical Formula 3-1 of claims 5-7 (paragraph [0032-0034 and 0039]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrolyte of Kim to comprise the claimed second additive represented by Chemical Formula 3-1, because Lee teaches that the electrolyte will have thermos-reversible characteristics of gelation under high temperature conditions, thereby preventing the battery from igniting without degrading battery performance (paragraph [0011]). In addition, the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities (benzene rings) and similar utilities (gelation properties at high temperatures to increase the safety of the battery). "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979), see MPEP 2144.09, I.
As to Claim 3, the additive represented by Chemical Formula (2) of Kim is structurally very close to the claimed compound (paragraph [0013]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrolyte of Kim to comprise the claimed additive represented by Chemical Formula 2-1, because Kim teaches that the electrolyte with improved performance and lifespan with reduced resistance changes and amount of gas generated at high temperatures is provided (paragraph [0033]). In addition, the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities (sulfate groups) and similar utilities (reducing resistance). "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979), see MPEP 2144.09, I.
As to Claim 8, Lee teaches wherein the average molecular weight of the second additive is 20,000-30,000 (paragraph [0033]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrolyte of Kim to comprise the claimed second additive’s molecular weight, because Lee teaches that the electrolyte will have thermos-reversible characteristics of gelation under high temperature conditions, thereby preventing the battery from igniting without degrading battery performance (paragraph [0011]).
As to Claims 9-10, Kim teaches wherein the amount of the first additive is 1 wt% (paragraph [0133]). Lee teaches wherein the amount of the additive is 2-5 wt% (paragraph [0029]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrolyte of Kim to comprise the claimed second additive amount, because Lee teaches that the electrolyte will have thermos-reversible characteristics of gelation under high temperature conditions, thereby preventing the battery from igniting without degrading battery performance (paragraph [0011]). The weight ratios of the first and second additives of modified Kim read on claim 9.
As to Claim 11, Lee teaches wherein the amount of the additive is 2-5 wt% (paragraph [0029]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrolyte of Kim to comprise the claimed second additive amount, because Lee teaches that the electrolyte will have thermos-reversible characteristics of gelation under high temperature conditions, thereby preventing the battery from igniting without degrading battery performance (paragraph [0011]).
As to Claim 13, Kim discloses wherein the positive active material comprises a lithium nickel-based composite oxide represented by formula 11 (paragraphs [0103-0104]).
. Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights