ELECTROLYTE SOLUTION, BATTERY AND ELECTRICAL DEVICE
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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to communication filed on 2/10/2026:
Claims 1, 14, and 16 have been added; claim 13 has been canceled. Claims 21 and 22 have been newly added. No new matter has been entered.
Previous objections to the specification have been withdrawn.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been modified.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 103 have been upheld.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant discloses: “By contrast, the cited references fail to teach or suggest the claimed compounds of the first additive.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. The Applicant has amended claim 1 to define the first additive with a broad limitation followed by a narrow limitation. There is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by the narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainer of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims (See 112(b) rejection below). In the case of (a), Ma still reads on the broad limitation (See structures C4, C5, and C7). The Examiner is introducing an additional reference to address the case of (b) being that it is a new limitation.
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.
Claims 1-12 and 14-22 are 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation wherein each of R1 and R2 is selected from a hydrogen atom, C1-C6 alkyl,
PNG
media_image1.png
98
104
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image2.png
106
160
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image3.png
100
128
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and the claim also recites at least one of R1 and R2 is selected from
PNG
media_image1.png
98
104
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image2.png
106
160
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image3.png
100
128
media_image3.png
Greyscale
which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 2-12 and 14-22 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for their dependence on claim 16.
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.
Claims 1-12, 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (CN 116154282 A using US 2025/0038263 A1 as an English language translation.) and, optionally, Fujiyama et al. (US 2021/0043971 A1), and further in view of Woo et al. (KR 2020-0134711 A).
Regarding claims 1-12 and 14-15, Ma et al. teach an electrolyte solution (Abstract discloses an electrolyte solution for a battery.) comprising a first additive, a second additive and a third additive (Abstract; claims 1 and 6 disclose a first, second, and a third additive.), wherein the first additive comprises a sulfate ester compound, the first additive comprises at least one of
PNG
media_image4.png
86
352
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein recitation wherein each of R1 and R2 is selected from a hydrogen atom, C1-C6 alkyl,
PNG
media_image1.png
98
104
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image2.png
106
160
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image3.png
100
128
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Paragraph 0020; claims 1 and 3 disclose the second additive can comprise esters as shown in structures B2
PNG
media_image5.png
100
133
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, C4
PNG
media_image6.png
118
98
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, C5
PNG
media_image7.png
99
114
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, and C7
PNG
media_image8.png
102
115
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.);
and the third additive comprises at least one of fluorosulfonate, tetrafluoroborate, difluorophosphate, difluoro(oxalato)borate, bis(oxalato)borate and difluorobis(oxalato)phosphate (Claim 7 discloses the third additive can comprise difluorophosphate, difluorobis(oxalate)phosphate, tetrafluoroborate, or difluoro(oxalate)borate.); and, wherein based on a total mass of the electrolyte solution, content W1 of the first additive, content W2 of the second additive and content W3 of the third additive satisfy W1:W2:W3=1:(0.1-1.5):(0.02-2.5) (Claim 4 discloses the amount of the first additive accounts for 0.1-10.0% of total mass of the electrolyte, and a use amount of the second additive accounts for 0.05-5.0% of the total mass of the electrolyte. Claims 6 and 7 discloses the third additive accounts for 0.1-5.0% of the total mass of the electrolyte.).
Optionally, while Ma et al. disclose the broad limitation of R1 and R2, they do not disclose the narrower limitation wherein R1 and R2 is selected from
PNG
media_image1.png
98
104
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image2.png
106
160
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image3.png
100
128
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Fujiyama et al. disclose the use of at least three additives for use in a nonaqueous electrolytic solution for a lithium secondary battery (Abstract). Further, the first additive can comprise a sulfate ester compound represented by Formula (I) (Paragraph 0135 discloses
PNG
media_image9.png
130
118
media_image9.png
Greyscale
), wherein R1 and/or R2 can comprise
PNG
media_image3.png
100
128
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Paragraph 0135; Formula II),
PNG
media_image2.png
106
160
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Paragraph 0135; Formula (IV), or
PNG
media_image1.png
98
104
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Paragraph 0135; Formula (III))(Paragraph 0136).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify R1 and/or R2 of Ma with that of Fujiyama in order to improve battery safety.
While Ma et al. teach the first additive (correlating to the claimed second additive) comprises a difluorophosphoric acid-based lithium trifluoroborate, they do not teach the second additive comprises:
the second additive comprises:
PNG
media_image10.png
109
136
media_image10.png
Greyscale
wherein Z1-Z4, each independently comprise an oxygen atom or a sulfur atom.
Woo et al. teach an electrolyte additive for a secondary battery (Abstract; title). Further, the structure of the additive comprises:
PNG
media_image11.png
107
157
media_image11.png
Greyscale
reading on Formula 2-1 (Claim 1 wherein Z1-Z4 each independently comprise an oxygen atom. Further, R can be a hydrogen atom.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the borate additive of Ma with the borate additive of Woo in order to improve electrochemical stability.
Regarding claims 16 and 20, Ma and Woo et al. teach a battery (Ma or Woo: Abstract), comprising the electrolyte solution according to claim 1. Further, Ma et al. teach wherein the battery comprises a positive electrode plate (Paragraph 0069 discloses a cathode plate.), and a positive electrode active material in the positive electrode plate comprises:
LixNiaCobMncMdO2-e,
M includes at least one of aluminum, zirconium, boron, magnesium, zinc, calcium and titanium, 0.65≤a≤0.98, 0≤b≤0.3, 0.02≤c≤0.3, 0≤d≤0.3, a+b+c+d＝1, 0.1≤x≤1.3, 0≤e≤1.9 (Claim 18 discloses the cathode active material can comprise LiNixCoyMnzO2 wherein x≥0.5, y>0, z>0, and x+y+z=1.).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (CN 116154282 A using US 2025/0038263 A1 as an English language translation.) and, optionally, Fujiyama et al. (US 2021/0043971 A1), and Woo et al. (KR 2020-0134711 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Muroya et al. (US 2019/0355969 A1).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Ma and Woo et al. teach the battery according to claim 16. However, they do not teach wherein compaction density of the positive electrode plate is 3.1 g/cm3-3.7 g/cm3, or compaction density of the positive electrode plate is 3.2 g/cm3-3.6 g/cm3.
Muroya et al. teach a positive electrode active material having the composition represented by LiaNibMncCodMxO2 wherein 0.9≤a≤1.2, 0<b<1, 0<c≤0.5, 0<d≤0.5, and 0≤x≤0.3; and M is at least one kind selected from Ti, Zr, Nb, W, P, Al, Mg, V, Ca, Sr, and Cr (Claim 4). Further, the compaction density of the positive electrode layer is 2.8-3.7 g/cm3 (Paragraph 0051; Examples 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ma and Woo with Muroya in order to increase capacity.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, the combination of Ma and Woo et al. teach the battery according to claim 16. Further, Ma et al. teach wherein the battery comprises a negative electrode plate (Paragraph 0069 discloses an anode plate.). However, they do not teach wherein the compaction density of the negative electrode plate is 1.3-1.7 g/cm3.
Muroya et al. teach a negative electrode layer which has a density of 1.2-1.8 g/cm3 (Paragraphs 0082; 0153).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ma and Woo with Muroya in order to increase capacity.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (CN 116154282 A using US 2025/0038263 A1 as an English language translation.) and, optionally, Fujiyama et al. (US 2021/0043971 A1), and Woo et al. (KR 2020-0134711 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lim et al. (US 2019/0296397 A1).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, the combination of Ma and Woo et al. teach the electrolyte solution according to claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein at least one of Z1, Z2, Z3, or Z4 is a sulfur atom and wherein the second additive comprises at least one of the following:
PNG
media_image12.png
148
450
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Lim et al. teach an electrolyte additive for a lithium battery (Abstract) can comprise a borate-based lithium compound of Formula (I):
PNG
media_image13.png
138
168
media_image13.png
Greyscale
wherein Y1 to Y4 are each independently oxygen or sulfur (Claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ma and Woo with Lim in order to improve high-rate charge and discharge characteristics.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 March 3rd, 2026