Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/635,923

SILICON-BASED ENERGY STORAGE DEVICES WITH PHOSPHORUS CONTAINING ELECTROLYTE ADDITIVES

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Apr 15, 2024
Examiner
AMPONSAH, OSEI K
Art Unit
1752
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Enevate Corporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
488 granted / 680 resolved
+6.8% vs TC avg
Strong +34% interview lift
Without
With
+34.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
68 currently pending
Career history
748
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
66.1%
+26.1% vs TC avg
§102
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
§112
9.1%
-30.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 680 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11-05-2025 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 16-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over KR 10-2018-0050781 A hereinafter Hyeong. Regarding Claim 16, Hyeong teaches a lithium secondary battery (energy storage device) comprising: a positive electrode (first electrode); a negative electrode (second electrode); a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (paragraph 13); and an electrolyte comprising a phosphite ester compound [i.e., Triallyl phosphite] (paragraph 21), a linear carbonate, a cyclic carbonate, and a lithium salt (paragraphs 19, 39-44), wherein the negative electrode is a Si-based electrode (paragraphs 63-65). Regarding Claim 17-18, Hyeong teaches that the phosphite ester compound is Triallyl phosphite in an amount of 0.1 to 3 wt.% (paragraphs 21-22). Regarding Claims 19-23, Hyeong teaches that the linear carbonate is ethyl methyl carbonate and the cyclic carbonate is ethylene carbonate (paragraph 44). Regarding Claims 24-25, Hyeong teaches that the lithium salt is a fluorinated lithium salt and a concentration of about 1 M or more (paragraphs 46-47). Regarding Claims 26-29, Hyeong teaches that the negative electrode is a Si-dominant negative electrode and can further include coating films (paragraphs 63-66). In addition, the Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, " [w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp." An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._,_, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 -97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 , E.). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSEI K AMPONSAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at (571)272-8760. 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. /OSEI K AMPONSAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 15, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 15, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 25, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 30, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 31, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 06, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 05, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 07, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12586819
Non-Aqueous Electrolyte and Lithium Secondary Battery Including the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580223
STABILIZED SOLID GARNET ELECTROLYTE AND METHODS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573615
All-Solid-State Battery and Method of Manufacturing the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12573717
MICROPOROUS MEMBRANES, SEPARATORS, LITHIUM BATTERIES, AND RELATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12567648
EXPLOSIVE ENVIRONMENT NEUTRALIZATION IN CHEMICAL ENERGY STORAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+34.3%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 680 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