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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 are currently under examination. Claims 5-8 are withdrawn from consideration. Claim 1 is amended.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/03/2025 has been entered.
Previous Grounds of Rejection
Regarding claims 1-4, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kozelj et al. (US 2020/0181071 A1, provisional application filed on 10/19/2016), and in view of Zak et al. (Acta Cryst. 1978, B34, 38-40) stands.
Previous Grounds of Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kozelj et al. (US 2020/0181071 A1, provisional application filed on 10/19/2016), and in view of Zak et al. (Acta Cryst. 1978, B34, 38-40).
Regarding claims 1-4, Kozelj et al. teach a process of making sulfamic acid salt having the formula I as shown below ([0032]-[0034]):
PNG
media_image1.png
916
695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As we see above, the formula I taught by Kozeli et al. corresponds to the instant claimed lithium sulfamate of formula (3), wherein R1 and R2 as being methyl groups (C1 alkyl groups), R3 as being OM (OLi).
The lithium sulfamate of Kozelj et al. is obtained from the step i) of the reaction of NH3 (R1R2NH, R1 and R2 as being CH3 groups) (the instant claimed formula (2)) with FSO3H (fluorosulfonic acid) and its salts. The step ii) taught by Kozelj et al. is an optionally step ([0022]):
PNG
media_image2.png
250
430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kozelj et al. further clearly points out the sulfamic acid derivatives thus produced and to their uses in electrolyte compositions for electrochemical applications (Abstract). Lithium salt of sulfamic acid derivatives are used in lithium ion batteries ([0113]).
The lithium sulfamate of Kozeli et al. is obtained from the reaction of R1R2NH (applicant’s formula (2)) with lithium salt of FSO3H (applicant’s formula (1) ([0021]-[0024]).
Although Kozeli et al do not specifically teach a method of making LiSO3F as per applicant claims 1-4, Zak et al. teach a method of prepared by the reaction of LiCl (applicant’s lithium source) with HSO3F (applicant’s compound formula (4)) (page 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the LiSO3F taught by Zak et al. in the process for making Lithium sulfamate taught by Kozeli et al. to obtain the invention as specified in the claims 1-4, motivated by the fact that the structure of LiSO3F taught by Zak et al. was confirmed by crystal structure.
Since both of Kozeli et al. and Zak et al. teach LiSO3F, one would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
With regards to the previous Grounds of Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/03/2025, with respect to claims 1-4, have been considered but are not persuasive. The examiner would like to take this opportunity to address the Applicant's arguments.
Applicant argued the instant claim 1 further distinguish Kozelj by adding the proviso that, if one of R1 or R2 is -SO2X1, then the other of R1 or R2 is also -SO2X1. In contrast, in Kozelj Formula I, there is no sulfonyl group among the choices for its substituent R1, so both of Kpzelj substituents R1 and R2 cannot be -SO2X1.
In addition, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reason to modify Kozelj to arrive at the invention as recited in amended claim 1 (Remarks, pages 9-10).
The Office respectfully submits the R1 and R2 recited in the instant claim 1 are C1 alkyl, … or -SO2X1 (Emphasis added)
As set forth above, Kozelj et al. teach a process of making sulfamic acid salt having the formula I as shown below ([0032]-[0034]):
PNG
media_image1.png
916
695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As we see above, the formula I taught by Kozeli et al. corresponds to the instant claimed lithium sulfamate of formula (3), wherein R1 and R2 as being methyl groups (C1 alkyl groups), R3 as being OM (OLi).
The lithium sulfamate of Kozelj et al. is obtained from the step i) of the reaction of NH3 (R1R2NH, R1 and R2 as being CH3 groups) (the instant claimed formula (2)) with FSO3H (fluorosulfonic acid) and its salts. The step ii) taught by Kozelj et al. is an optionally step ([0022]):
PNG
media_image2.png
250
430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kozelj et al. further clearly points out the sulfamic acid derivatives thus produced and to their uses in electrolyte compositions for electrochemical applications (Abstract). Lithium salt of sulfamic acid derivatives are used in lithium ion batteries ([0113]).
The lithium sulfamate of Kozeli et al. is obtained from the reaction of R1R2NH (applicant’s formula (2)) with lithium salt of FSO3H (applicant’s formula (1) ([0021]-[0024]).
Although Kozeli et al do not specifically teach a method of making LiSO3F as per applicant claims 1-4, Zak et al. teach a method of prepared by the reaction of LiCl (applicant’s lithium source) with HSO3F (applicant’s compound formula (4)) (page 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the LiSO3F taught by Zak et al. in the process for making Lithium sulfamate taught by Kozeli et al. to obtain the invention as specified in the claims 1-4, motivated by the fact that the structure of LiSO3F taught by Zak et al. was confirmed by crystal structure.
Since both of Kozeli et al. and Zak et al. teach LiSO3F, one would have a reasonable expectation of success.
As such, the rejection is propyl and stands.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUN QIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-4:00pm.
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, Sally A Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
YUN . QIAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1732
/YUN QIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738