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
This is a final Office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 05/22/2026. Claims 1 and 18 are amended. Claims 10 – 11 and 17 are canceled. Claims 1 – 2, 5 – 7, 9, and 12 – 15, and 18 – 20 are pending in the current Office action.
The 35 U.S.C 103 rejections set forth in the current Office action are withdrawn. A new grounds of rejection, necessitated by applicant’s amendment {i.e. applicant’s narrows the scope of the claimed invention in a manner that was not previously presented by requiring the solvent to “consist of” EC and EMC and the lithium salt to “consist of” lithium hexafluorophosphate and one or more of compounds represented by formula I}, is established below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and the prior art combination failing to teach/suggest the electrolyte solvent and lithium salt composition have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, in the new grounds of rejection, a new primary reference: Mizuno (US PG Pub. 2015/0380768 A1) is relied upon.
Applicant's arguments, filed 05/22/2026, regarding the unexpected results of the claimed invention have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that Tables 1 and 2 demonstrate that the claimed combination of parameters {i.e. electrolyte solvent and salt composition, current collector elongation, group margin, current collector thickness, and coating weight ranges} achieves unexpected and balanced improvements over the comparative batteries.
Examiner agrees that the working examples within Tables 1 and 2 demonstrate improved rate, low-temperature, and cycling performance in comparison to the comparative examples; however, examiner respectfully observes the following:
Example 20 does not appear to support applicant’s assertion that advantageous performance arises when the claimed parameters are combined. Specifically, example 20 has a thickness of the collector that is outside the claimed range {i.e. 5 µm} while the other parameters are within the claimed ranges, and is shown to provide the highest 0.5 discharge capacity {i.e. 159} and highest nail penetration test pass rates {97%} of the working examples.
The instant current collector thickness appears critical for achieving applicant’s alleged unexpected results when employing an elongation break of 2.6%, a coating weight of 0.018 g/cm2, an electrolyte composition of 12 wt% LiFSI and 2 wt% LiPF6, and a group margin of 90% (Refer to Examples 2 and 9 vs. Comparative Examples 6 – 7} . Similarly, the instant elongation break appears critical when employing a current collector thickness of 12 µm, a coating weight of 0.018 g/cm2, an electrolyte composition of 12 wt% LiFSI and 2 wt% LiPF6, and a group margin of 90%; and the instant coating weight appears critical when employing a current collector thickness of 12 µm, an elongation break of 2.6%, an electrolyte composition of 12 wt% LiFSI and 2 wt% LiPF6, and a group margin of 90% (Refer to Examples 16 – 17 vs. Comparative Examples 4 – 5). In other words, although the applicant tries to argue the criticality of each parameters together, each parameter in claim 1 may vary within broader ranges than the combination of ranges/values demonstrated by the data.
Additionally, the examiner notes that each parameters appears to be tested alongside the best-performing values of other parameters, for example, varying current collector thickness , electrolyte composition, elongation, group margin when the positive electrode plate coating weight is 0.018 g/cm2. As such, in light of the above, and especially in light of some of the instant parameters appearing to not be required to achieve high discharge capacity performance and achieve a relatively high nail penetration pass rate {i.e. refer to example 20 and comparative example 9}, it is unclear if the claimed combination of parameter ranges are critical together for achieving applicant alleged unexpected results, and applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
The examiner further acknowledges that Examples 1 – 2, which include a salt composition and solvent composition within the claimed scope, exhibit superior rate, low-temperature, and cycling performance when compared Comparative Examples 1 – 3 which do not include the LiFSI salt; however, the examiner notes that such examples only exhibit superior results when the formula I compound is LiFSI. The examiner additionally notes that Examples 22 – 28, only exhibit superior results when the formula I compound of the electrolyte is FSO2N-(Li+)SO2CF3, CF3SO2N- (Li+)SO2CF3, FSO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2F, FSO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2F, FSO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2CF3, CF3SO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2CF3, and FSO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(LiF)SO2N-(Li+)SO2CF3, respectively. As such, as claim 1 allows for a significantly broader selection of formula I compounds and claim 18 allows for a broader selection of compounds than what is shown to achieve applicant’s alleged unexpected results, it is unclear if the claimed electrolyte composition {i.e. salt content range and electrolyte solvent ratio} would be critical across such a broad selection of formula I compounds/lithium salt compounds {i.e. the claimed invention still appears incommensurate in scope with the invention argued to achieve the alleged unexpected/superior results}. Therefore, applicant’s arguments regarding the criticality of the claimed parameters are further rendered unpersuasive, and the pending case of obviousness appears to remain proper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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) 1 – 2, 5, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno (US PG Pub. 2015/0380768 A1) in view of Li (CN106848325A), Ihara (CN103003457B), Umeyama (US PG Pub. 2016/0380299 A1), and Zheng (US PG Pub. 2016/0093912 A1) {Examiner Note: All teaching references were previously cited in the O.A. mailed 02/24/2026}.
Regarding Claim 1, Mizuno discloses a lithium ion battery ([0059]), comprising a battery housing ([0059];[0094 – 0095]); an electrolyte, comprising a lithium ion salt and an organic solvent ([0018 – 0020];[0022];[0040]); and an electrode assembly ([0059];[0063];[0083];[0091]), comprising a positive electrode plate ([0063]), a negative electrode plate ([0083]), and a separator ([0091]); wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode current collector ([0068 – 0069]) and a positive electrode membrane that is disposed on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector and that comprises a positive electrode active material ([0063];[0066][0070 – 0071]), and the negative electrode plate comprises a negative electrode current collector ([0085 – 0086]) and a negative electrode membrane that is disposed on at least surface one surface of the negative electrode current collector and that comprises a negative electrode active material ([0083 – 0084];[0087 – 0088]).
In working examples 9 – 23, 24, and 26, Mizuno explicitly discloses electrolyte compositions with organic solvent consisting of EC:EMC and lithium salts consisting of LiPF6 and LiFSI (Tables 1 – 2). Mizuno further explicitly discloses examples where instead of LiPF6 and LiFSI, the lithium salts are LiFTI, which is represented by FSO2N-(Li+)SO2CF3, and LiPF6 (Examples 29 – 37 in Table 3). Both LiFSI and LiFTI are compounds within the claimed scope of claimed Formula I. As such, by providing such examples, Mizuno further discloses wherein the organic solvent consists of ethylene carbonate (EC) and ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) and the lithium salt consist of lithium hexafluorophosphate and on compound represented by formula I {i.e. LiFSI or LiFTI}.
Furthermore, in working Examples 22, Mizuno explicitly discloses an electrolyte composition including 1.00 mol/L of LiFSI, 0.20 mol/L of LiPF6, and EC:EMC at a volume ratio of 10:90 (See Table 1). One with ordinary skill in the art would appreciate/recognize that the mass ratio of EC:EMC as well as mass of lithium hexafluorophosphate and LiFSI can estimated using the data provided in Mizuno’s Table and the densities and molar masses of the electrolyte components. As such, through working example 23, Mizuno further discloses an embodiment where the mass ratio of EC:EMC is ≈ 1.32:9.054, which is within the claimed range of 1:20 to 3:7, a mass of the compound represented by formula I {i.e. LiFSI} is ≈ 17.3%, which is within the claimed range of 12% to 25%, of a total mass of the electrolyte, and a mass of the lithium hexafluorophosphate is ≈ 2.3%, which is within the claimed range of 2% to 5%, of the total mass of the electrolyte.
Mizuno does not necessarily restrict the figure of the lithium secondary battery and further teaches that their electrolyte is applicable cylinder type, square type, laminate type, coin type and large size batteries ([0060]). The working example battery of Mizuno is taught to be a coin cell ([0100 – 0102]).
Mizuno does not explicitly disclose a group margin of the battery cell of the lithium-ion battery ranging from 85 – 95%.
Li teaches controlling the length/positioning of coating areas on wound secondary battery electrodes for the purpose of reducing group margin of the entire battery cell to save internal battery space and optimize the capacity of the cell ([0026];[0056 – 0058]). The group margin value taught by Lee is obtained by dividing the battery cell thickness by the internal thickness of the battery casing ([0097]); therefore, the group margin taught by Li reads on the claimed group margin (Refer to [0020] of the instant specification). Li exemplifies group margin values ranging from 88.1% - 92.80% (Table 3, Examples C1 – C11; [0101]).
Since Mizuno does not necessarily limit the lithium secondary battery type and further teaches utilizing battery structures which would necessarily and inherently include wound electrode assemblies {i.e. cylindrical cells}, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Mizuno’s example battery to have a wound electrode structure {i.e. electrode coating area position and length} as taught by Lee, and thus obtain a group margin within the claimed range of 85 – 95%, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a suitable lithium ion battery structure for Mizuno’s electrolyte with the additional benefits of optimized internal space and capacity.
In the working battery embodiment, Mizuno exemplifies using an aluminum foil as the positive electrode current collector ([0100]).
Modified Mizuno does not explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of the positive electrode current collector ranges from 8 µm to 12 µm.
Ihara teaches an aluminum foil collector for a positive electrode of a secondary lithium-ion battery that has a thickness of 5 – 20 µm ([0002];[0031]). Ihara further teaches that in order to increase the battery capacity of lithium-ion secondary batteries, the thickness of aluminum should be as thin as possible, but that it is difficult to produce a high-strength foil less than 5 µm ([0059]). Exceeding 20 µm is taught by Ihara to reduce the amount of electrode active material that can be included in the battery and thus decrease battery capacity {Examiner Note: In [0059] Ihara states “when the particle size exceeds 20 µm”; however this appears to be a machine translation error, because the recitation before and after the sentence with the error is clearly directed to only current collector thickness. As such, the examiner believes the sentence was meant to recite “when the thickness exceeds 20 µm”. Furthermore, the Examiner provides an additional machine translation from Google Patents which, in the same sentence, does not include words “particle size” (Refer to highlighted text on pg. 4)}.
Umeyama teaches, for a positive electrode current collector for a lithium-ion secondary battery, controlling the thickness to be preferably 8 to 30 µm to achieve a balance between capacity density and strength of the current collector ([0071]).
Since Mizuno only exemplifies using an aluminum foil positive electrode current collector, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the thickness of the exemplified current collector to be within the overlapping portion of the claimed ranged and the ranges taught by Ihara and Umeyama in order to optimize the current collector strength and the battery capacity, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See MPEP 2144.05(II)].
As established above, the positive electrode current collector of modified Mizuno has a thickness within the range of 8 – 12 µm.
Modified Mizuno does not disclose an elongation at break of the positive electrode current collector ranging from 0.8% - 4%.
Ihara teaches an aluminum hard foil collector for a positive electrode of a secondary lithium-ion battery that has a thickness of 5 – 20 µm, a strength of 215 MPa or more, and an elongation of 1.0% or more ([0002];[0031]). Ihara further teaches that as the strength of the foil increases, the elongation, which corresponds to the ductility of the foil, decreases ([0020]). Ihara further teaches that when elongation is high and strength is low, the foil during the electrode manufacturing process may become brittle and break ([0021]). Based on the examples, the highest elongation amount taught by Ihara is 5.8% (Table 1, Example 10; [0109]).
Since Mizuno teaches using aluminum foil as a collector, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the elongation at break of modified Mizuno’s aluminum foil collector as taught by Ihara, and thus obtain a collector with an elongation that overlaps the claimed range of 0.8 – 4%, with a reasonable expectation of obtaining a collector suitable for the battery of modified Mizuno and with the benefits of sufficient strength and elongation.
Selection of an elongation at break within the overlapping portion of Ihara’s taught range {i.e. 1 – 5.8%} and the claimed range would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the strength and ductility of the collector, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See MPEP 2144.05(II)].
In their example, Mizuno teaches preparing the positive electrode by preparing a positive electrode slurry, applying the slurry to a surface of the aluminum foil collector and drying the coated foil ([0100]).
Modified Mizuno does not explicitly disclose wherein a single-sided coating weight of the positive electrode plate ranges from 0.015 g/cm2 to 0.023 g/cm2 .
Zheng teaches preparing positive electrodes with a coating weight of 230 mg/1540.25 mm2 {i.e. about 0.015 g/cm2} to 380 mg/1540.25 mm2 {i.e. about 0.025 g/cm2 } and negative electrodes with a coating weight of 120 mg/1540.25 mm2 {i.e. about 0.008 g/cm2} to 190 mg/1540.25 mm2 {i.e. about 0.012 g/cm2} ([0019]). Zheng further teaches that reducing the coating weights of the electrodes decreases current per unit area, alleviates the concentration polarization along the thickness direction of the electrodes, and ultimately prevents precipitation of lithium ions on the negative electrode surface during fast charging ([0019];[0080]). Furthermore, Zheng teaches optimizing electrode capacity based on the coating weight, weight ratio of active material, and capacity per gram of active material ([0031]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the cathode and anode of modified Mizuno using the coating weights as taught by Zheng, and thus obtain a positive electrode with a coating weight that significantly overlaps the claimed range of 0.015 g/cm2 to 0.023 g/cm2, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining suitable electrodes for the battery of modified Mizuno and in preventing precipitation of lithium ions on the negative electrode surface during charging.
Selection of positive electrode coating weights within the overlapping portion of Zheng’s taught range and the claimed range would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the capacity of the electrode and further ensure the prevention of lithium ion precipitation on the negative electrode surface of modified Mizuno’s battery, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Regarding Claim 2, modified Mizuno discloses all limitations as set forth above. In example 23, Mizuno specifically discloses using LiFSI in the electrolyte (Table 1), which as established above, is a compound within the scope of claimed Formula I. LiFSI is represented by FSO2N-(Li+)SO2F, and therefore is further within the list of claimed formula 1 compounds selected from one or more of FSO2N-(Li+)SO2F, FSO2N-(Li+)SO2CF3, CF3SO2N- (Li+)SO2CF3, FSO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2F, FSO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2F, FSO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2C F3, CF3SO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2CF3, FSO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(LiF)SO2N-(Li+)SO2CF3, and CF3SO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2CF3.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Mizuno discloses all limitations as set forth above. Mizuno further discloses wherein the positive electrode current collector is selected from aluminum foil ([0100]).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Mizuno discloses all limitations as set forth above. In their example, Mizuno teaches preparing the positive electrode by preparing a positive electrode slurry, applying the slurry to a surface of the aluminum foil collector and drying the coated foil ([0100]). Mizuno further teaches, as an alternate method, forming the positive electrode by mixing the active material composition, making the composition into a sheet and drying the sheet, and obtaining the body of the electrode by pressing and drying the active material composition on the current collector ([0066]).
Modified Mizuno does not explicitly disclose wherein a compacted density of the positive electrode plate ranges from 2.0 g/cm3 to 3.5 g/cm3.
Umeyama teaches pressing positive electrodes to have a density of typically 2.0 g/cm3 or more and 4.2 g/cm3 or less ([0076]). Umeyama additionally teaches the electrode having a thickness of typically 50 – 100 µm after pressing ([0076]). Umeyama further teaches that densities and thicknesses within the taught range provide high battery performance, such as high energy density and output density ([0076]).
Since Mizuno also teaches alternately forming the electrode by pressing and drying the active material layer onto the collector, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to forming the positive electrode of modified Mizuno by pressing as taught by Umeyama, and thus obtain a positive electrode with a compacted density that overlaps the claimed range of 2.0 g/cm3 to 3.5 g/cm3, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a positive electrode that allows for high battery performance, such as high energy density and output density.
Zheng further teaches that a too high compacted density can fracture the positive electrode and that increases in compacted density provide increases in positive electrode polarization ([0014]).
Selection of a compacted density within the overlapping portion of Ueyama’s taught range and the claimed range would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the safety {i.e. avoid fracturing} and battery performance characteristics of the positive electrode, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Regarding Claim 12, modified Mizuno discloses all limitations as set forth above. Mizuno further teaches utilizing the lithium-ion battery as a high-voltage supply of several dozen volt to several hundred volt for a battery vehicle, a hybrid electric vehicle and the like ([0060]).
Li further teaches that lithium-ion batteries are favored for electric vehicle applications because of their high energy density, and further indicates that battery cells with reduced groups margins/saved internal space have capacities and energy densities that further favor applications in electric vehicles ([0004]).
Therefore, while modified Mizuno does not explicitly disclose an apparatus, wherein a driving source or storage source of the apparatus is the lithium ion-battery according to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the battery of modified Mizuno in a vehicle, and thus obtain the claimed apparatus, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining functioning vehicle, because, as suggested by Mizuno and Li, the battery characteristics of modified Mizuno are suitable for electric vehicle applications.
Claim(s) 6 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno (US PG Pub. 2015/0380768 A1), Li (CN106848325A), Ihara (CN103003457B), Umeyama (US PG Pub. 2016/0380299 A1) and Zheng (US PG Pub. 2016/0093912 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang (CN104966840A – cited in previous O.A. mailed 02/24/2026).
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, modified Mizuno discloses all limitations as set forth above. For the current collector of the positive electrode Mizuno exemplifies using aluminum metal foil ([0100]).
Modified Mizuno does not explicitly disclose wherein an aluminum oxide layer is disposed on both of two surfaces of the aluminum foil. (Claim 6), and further wherein the thickness of the aluminum oxide layer ranges from 5 nm to 40 nm (Claim 7).
Yang teaches a positive electrode current collector comprising an aluminum foil layer and a porous alumina resistor layer coated on the surface of the aluminum foil layer ([0012];[0014]). Yang further teaches a preference for having the coating layer be a thickness of 12 – 25 nm ([0015]). The alumina layer is taught by Yang to provide a positive electrode with increased safety, improved adhesion between the active material and collector, and improved cycle life ([0035]).
Since the positive electrode current collector of Mizuno is formed from aluminum foil, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the collector of modified Mizuno, by coating the surfaces of the aluminum foil with a 12 – 25 nm thick porous alumina layer, as taught by Yang, and thus obtain the claimed aluminum oxide layer with a thickness within the claimed range of 5 – 40 nm, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a positive electrode with increased safety, improved adhesion between the active material and collector, and improved cycle life.
Claim(s) 13 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno (US PG Pub. 2015/0380768 A1), Li (CN106848325A), Ihara (CN103003457B), Umeyama (US PG Pub. 2016/0380299 A1) and Zheng (US PG Pub. 2016/0093912 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Han (CN102786443B – cited in previous O.A. mailed 02/24/2026).
Regarding Claims 13 and 15, modified Mizuno discloses all limitations as set forth above. Mizuno generally teaches using an electrolyte salt containing a compound represented by formula (I) (XSO2)(FSO2)NLi where X is a fluorine atom, a C- alkyl group or a C fluoroalkyl group ([0022];[0035]). Mizuno teaches using the electrolyte salt represented by the formula (I) in order to achieve improved cycle characteristics of the battery by inhibiting an increase of an internal resistance of the battery to maintain the discharge voltage at high level ([0034]). As established above, in working examples Mizuno explicitly exemplifies using LiFSI {i.e. Formula 1 where n = 1} and LiFTI {i.e. Formula 1 where n = 1}.
Mizuno does not disclose a lithium salt within the scope of claimed Formula I wherein the n is 2 – 3 (Claim 13).
Han teaches fluorine-containing sulfonyl imide alkali metal salts for non-aqueous electrolytes of lithium-ion batteries, particularly Han teaches a binary and ternary fluorine-containing sulfonyl imide alkali metal salt having the structural formulas (II) and (IV), respectively, where M is Li, Na, K, Rb, or Cs ([0011 – 00012];[0021 – 0027];[0032 – 0033]).
PNG
media_image1.png
179
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Formula (II) and Formula (IV) from Han.
In Formulas (II) and (IV), the RF1 and RF2 is CmF2m+1 where m = 0 – 8 and may be the same or different ([0025 – 0027]). Formulas (II) and (IV), when M is Li, significantly overlap in scope with claimed formula I. Table 8 particularly shows examples of the binary and ternary lithium imide salts, and the example Li2[(FSO2N)2SO2] is within the claimed scope of formula I when n = 2 and further is within the claimed selection of compounds represented by formula I {i.e. FSO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2F } (claim 15). The imide salts are taught by Han to provide electrolytes with improved conductivity, low viscosity, a wide electrochemical window, and improved rate performance ([0084]).
Since Mizuno teaches using imide salts in lithium ion battery electrolytes with carbonate solvents in order achieve improved battery cycle characteristics, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electrolyte of Mizuno to use Li2[(FSO2N)2SO2] as a lithium salt, as taught by Han, and thus obtain an electrolyte comprising an lithium salt within the claimed scope of claims 13 and 15, with a reasonable expectation that such an imide salt would be a functionally equivalent/suitable salt for Mizuno’s electrolyte and further would be a selection of lithium salt capable of providing an electrolyte with improved conductivity, low viscosity, a wide electrochemical window, and improved rate performance as well as a battery with the improved cycle characteristics desired by Mizuno.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Mizuno discloses all limitations as set forth above. Mizuno generally teaches using an electrolyte salt containing a compound represented by formula (I) (XSO2)(FSO2)NLi where X is a fluorine atom, a C- alkyl group or a C fluoroalkyl group ([0022];[0035]). Mizuno teaches using the electrolyte salt represented by the formula (I) in order to achieve improved cycle characteristics of the battery by inhibiting an increase of an internal resistance of the battery to maintain the discharge voltage at high level ([0034]). As established above, in working examples Mizuno explicitly exemplifies using LiFSI {i.e. Formula 1 where n = 1} and LiFTI {i.e. Formula 1 where n = 1}.
Mizuno does not disclose a lithium imide salt within the scope of claimed Formula I wherein n is 3 (Claim 14).
Han teaches fluorine-containing sulfonyl imide alkali metal salts for non-aqueous electrolytes of lithium-ion batteries, particularly Han teaches a binary and ternary fluorine-containing sulfonyl imide alkali metal salt having the structural formulas (II) and (IV), respectively, where M is Li, Na, K, Rb, or Cs ([0011 – 00012];[0021 – 0027];[0032 – 0033]).
PNG
media_image1.png
179
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Formula (II) and Formula (IV) from Han.
In Formulas (II) and (IV), the RF1 and RF2 is CmF2m+1 where m = 0 – 8 and may be the same or different ([0025 – 0027]). Formulas (II) and (IV), when M is Li, significantly overlap in scope with claimed formula I. Table 8 particularly shows examples of the binary and ternary lithium imide salts, and the example Li3[(FSO2N)2(SO2)2N] (refer to last four examples in Table 8) is within the claimed scope of formula I, specifically it is formula I when n = 3, Rf1 and Rf2 are the same, and CmF2m+1 is F {i.e. m = 0}. The imide salts are taught by Han to provide electrolytes with improved conductivity, low viscosity, a wide electrochemical window, and improved rate performance ([0084]).
Since Mizuno teaches using imide salts in lithium ion battery electrolytes with carbonate solvents in order achieve improved battery cycle characteristics, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electrolyte of Mizuno to include Li3[(FSO2N)2(SO2)2N] as a lithium salt, as taught by Han, and thus obtain an electrolyte comprising an imide salt within the claimed scope of claim 14, with a reasonable expectation that such an imide salt would be a functionally equivalent/suitable salt for Mizuno’s electrolyte and further would be a selection of lithium salt capable of providing an electrolyte with improved conductivity, low viscosity, a wide electrochemical window, and improved rate performance as well as a battery with the improved cycle characteristics desired by Mizuno.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno (US PG Pub. 2015/0380768 A1), Li (CN106848325A), Ihara (CN103003457B), Umeyama (US PG Pub. 2016/0380299 A1), Zheng (US PG Pub. 2016/0093912 A1) and Han (CN102786443B), as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Eshetu ("Ultrahigh performance all solid-state lithium sulfur batteries: salt anion’s chemistry-induced anomalous synergistic effect", 2018, Journal of the American chemical society, 140(31), pp. 9921-9933 – cited in previous O.A. mailed 02/24/2026).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Mizuno discloses all limitations as set forth above. As established above, modified Mizuno includes Li3[(FSO2N)2(SO2)2N] as a lithium salt in the electrolyte. Li3[(FSO2N)2(SO2)2N] is within the claimed scope of formula I, specifically it is formula I when n = 3, Rf1 and Rf2 are the same, and CmF2m+1 is F {i.e. m = 0}.
Li3[(FSO2N)2(SO2)2N] does not include CF3 as one or both of the Rf groups; therefore, modified Mizuno does not explicitly disclose a compound represented by formula (I) selected from one or more of FSO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(LiF)SO2N-(Li+)SO2CF3 and CF3SO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2CF3.
Eshetu teaches that in lithium imide salts, the -SO2CF3 and -SO2F groups of the chemical structure provide different functionalities, and when used in combination, can merge the complementary advantages of both TFSI- and FSI- (Refer to Figure 1; Abstract and final paragraph in Introduction section). The synergistic effects of using both groups in the chemical structure include a robust SEI layer, improved discharge/areal capacity, stable long-term cyclability, high Coulombic/energy efficiency, etc. (Refer to second to last paragraph in Introduction section).
While the teachings of Eshetu are in reference to solid electrolyte batteries, since both Mizuno and Han indicate that it is known in the art to use imide salts in non-aqueous electrolyte batteries, one with ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that such synergetic effects of using both -SO2CF3 and -SO2F groups in imide salts, such as improved discharge capacity or stable cyclability, would also be relevant to non-aqueous electrolyte batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Li3[(FSO2N)2(SO2)2N] salt of modified Mizuno to include a -SO2CF3 and -SO2F group rather than two -SO2F groups, as taught by Eshetu, and thus obtain Li3[FSO2N(SO2)2NSO2CF3], which is within the claimed list of compounds, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining an lithium ion battery electrolyte with the benefits of improved discharge capacity or stable cyclability due to the synergistic effects of -SO2CF3 and -SO2F groups in the salt.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno (US PG Pub. 2015/0380768 A1) in view of Yang (CN104966840A), Li (CN106848325A), Ihara (CN103003457B), Umeyama (US PG Pub. 2016/0380299 A1) and Zheng (US PG Pub. 2016/0093912 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Mizuno discloses a lithium ion battery ([0059]), comprising a battery housing ([0059];[0094 – 0095]); an electrolyte, comprising a lithium ion salt and an organic solvent ([0018 – 0020];[0022];[0040]); and an electrode assembly ([0059];[0063];[0083];[0091]), comprising a positive electrode plate ([0063]), a negative electrode plate ([0083]), and a separator ([0091]); wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode current collector ([0068 – 0069]) and a positive electrode membrane that is disposed on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector and that comprises a positive electrode active material ([0063];[0066][0070 – 0071]), and the negative electrode plate comprises a negative electrode current collector ([0085 – 0086]) and a negative electrode membrane that is disposed on at least surface one surface of the negative electrode current collector and that comprises a negative electrode active material ([0083 – 0084];[0087 – 0088]).
For the current collector of the positive electrode Mizuno exemplifies using aluminum metal foil ([0100]).
Mizuno does not explicitly disclose an aluminum oxide layer disposed on both of two surfaces of the aluminum foil.
Yang teaches a positive electrode current collector comprising an aluminum foil layer and a porous alumina resistor layer coated on the surface of the aluminum foil layer ([0012];[0014]). The alumina layer is taught by Yang to provide a positive electrode with increased safety, improved adhesion between the active material and collector, and improved cycle life ([0035]).
Since Mizuno teaches using aluminum foil as a collector, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the collector of Mizuno, by coating the surfaces of the aluminum foil with a porous alumina layer, as taught by Yang, and thus obtain the claimed aluminum oxide layer, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a positive electrode with increased safety, improved adhesion between the active material and collector, and improved cycle life.
In working examples 9 – 23, 24, and 26, Mizuno explicitly discloses electrolyte compositions with organic solvent consisting of EC:EMC and lithium salts consisting of LiPF6 and LiFSI (Tables 1 – 2). Mizuno further explicitly discloses examples where instead of LiPF6 and LiFSI, the lithium salts are LiFTI, which is represented by FSO2N-(Li+)SO2CF3, and LiPF6 (Examples 29 – 37 in Table 3). As such, by providing such examples, Mizuno further discloses wherein the organic solvent consists of ethylene carbonate (EC) and ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) and the lithium salt consist of lithium hexafluorophosphate and a compound selected from FSO2N-(Li+)SO2F {i.e. LiFSI} or FSO2N- (Li+)SO2CF3 {i.e. LiFTI}, which are within the claimed selection.
Furthermore, in working Example 22, Mizuno explicitly discloses an electrolyte composition including 1.00 mol/L of LiFSI, 0.20 mol/L of LiPF6, and EC:EMC at a volume ratio of 10:90 (See Table 1). One with ordinary skill in the art would appreciate/recognize that the mass ratio of EC:EMC as well as mass of lithium hexafluorophosphate and LiFSI can estimated using the data provided in Mizuno’s Table and the densities and molar masses of the electrolyte components. As such, through working example 23, Mizuno further discloses an embodiment where the mass ratio of EC:EMC is ≈ 1.32:9.054, which is within the claimed range of 1:20 to 3:7, a mass of the compound represented by formula I {i.e. LiFSI} is ≈ 17.3%, which is within the claimed range of 12% to 25%, of a total mass of the electrolyte, and a mass of the lithium hexafluorophosphate is ≈ 2.3%, which is within the claimed range of 2% to 5%, of the total mass of the electrolyte.
Mizuno does not necessarily restrict the figure of the lithium secondary battery and further teaches that their electrolyte is applicable cylinder type, square type, laminate type, coin type and large size batteries ([0060]). The working example battery of Mizuno is taught to be a coin cell ([0100 – 0102]).
Mizuno does not explicitly disclose a group margin of the battery cell of the lithium-ion battery ranging from 85 – 95%.
Li teaches controlling the length/positioning of coating areas on wound secondary battery electrodes for the purpose of reducing group margin of the entire battery cell to save internal battery space and optimize the capacity of the cell ([0026];[0056 – 0058]). The group margin value taught by Lee is obtained by dividing the battery cell thickness by the internal thickness of the battery casing ([0097]); therefore, the group margin taught by Li reads on the claimed group margin (Refer to [0020] of the instant specification). Li exemplifies group margin values ranging from 88.1% - 92.80% (Table 3, Examples C1 – C11; [0101]).
Since Mizuno does not necessarily limit the lithium secondary battery type and further teaches utilizing battery structures which would necessarily and inherently include wound electrode assemblies {i.e. cylindrical cells}, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Mizuno’s example battery to have a wound electrode structure {i.e. electrode coating area position and length} as taught by Lee, and thus obtain a group margin within the claimed range of 85 – 95%, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a suitable lithium ion battery structure for Mizuno’s electrolyte with the additional benefits of optimized internal space and capacity.
In the working battery embodiment, Mizuno exemplifies using an aluminum foil as the positive electrode current collector ([0100]).
Modified Mizuno does not explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of the positive electrode current collector ranges from 8 µm to 12 µm.
Ihara teaches an aluminum foil collector for a positive electrode of a secondary lithium-ion battery that has a thickness of 5 – 20 µm ([0002];[0031]). Ihara further teaches that in order to increase the battery capacity of lithium-ion secondary batteries, the thickness of aluminum should be as thin as possible, but that it is difficult to produce a high-strength foil less than 5 µm ([0059]). Exceeding 20 µm is taught by Ihara to reduce the amount of electrode active material that can be included in the battery and thus decrease battery capacity {Examiner Note: In [0059] Ihara states “when the particle size exceeds 20 µm”; however, this appears to be a machine translation error, because the recitation before and after the sentence with the error is clearly directed to only current collector thickness. As such, the examiner believes the sentence was meant to recite “when the thickness exceeds 20 µm”. Furthermore, the Examiner provides an additional machine translation from Google Patents which, in the same sentence, does not include words “particle size” (Refer to highlighted text on pg. 4)}.
Umeyama teaches, for a positive electrode current collector for a lithium-ion secondary battery, controlling the thickness to be preferably 8 to 30 µm to achieve a balance between capacity density and strength of the current collector ([0071]).
Since Mizuno only exemplifies using an aluminum foil positive electrode current collector, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the thickness of the exemplified current collector to be within the overlapping portion of the claimed ranged and the ranges taught by Ihara and Umeyama in order to optimize the current collector strength and the battery capacity, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See MPEP 2144.05(II)].
As established above, the positive electrode current collector of modified Mizuno has a thickness within the range of 8 – 12 µm.
Modified Mizuno does not disclose an elongation at break of the positive electrode current collector ranging from 0.8% - 4%.
Ihara teaches an aluminum hard foil collector for a positive electrode of a secondary lithium-ion battery that has a thickness of 5 – 20 µm, a strength of 215 MPa or more, and an elongation of 1.0% or more ([0002];[0031]). Ihara further teaches that as the strength of the foil increases, the elongation, which corresponds to the ductility of the foil, decreases ([0020]). Ihara further teaches that when elongation is high and strength is low, the foil during the electrode manufacturing process may become brittle and break ([0021]). Based on the examples, the highest elongation amount taught by Ihara is 5.8% (Table 1, Example 10; [0109]).
Since Mizuno teaches using aluminum foil as a collector, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the elongation at break of modified Mizuno’s aluminum foil collector as taught by Ihara, and thus obtain a collector with an elongation that overlaps the claimed range of 0.8 – 4%, with a reasonable expectation of obtaining a collector suitable for the battery of modified Mizuno and with the benefits of sufficient strength and elongation.
Selection of an elongation at break within the overlapping portion of Ihara’s taught range {i.e. 1 – 5.8%} and the claimed range would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the strength and ductility of the collector, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See MPEP 2144.05(II)].
In their example, Mizuno teaches preparing the positive electrode by preparing a positive electrode slurry, applying the slurry to a surface of the aluminum foil collector and drying the coated foil ([0100]).
Modified Mizuno does not explicitly disclose wherein a single-sided coating weight of the positive electrode plate ranges from 0.015 g/cm2 to 0.023 g/cm2 .
Zheng teaches preparing positive electrodes with a coating weight of 230 mg/1540.25 mm2 {i.e. about 0.015 g/cm2} to 380 mg/1540.25 mm2 {i.e. about 0.025 g/cm2 } and negative electrodes with a coating weight of 120 mg/1540.25 mm2 {i.e. about 0.008 g/cm2} to 190 mg/1540.25 mm2 {i.e. about 0.012 g/cm2} ([0019]). Zheng further teaches that reducing the coating weights of the electrodes decreases current per unit area, alleviates the concentration polarization along the thickness direction of the electrodes, and ultimately prevents precipitation of lithium ions on the negative electrode surface during fast charging ([0019];[0080]). Furthermore, Zheng teaches optimizing electrode capacity based on the coating weight, weight ratio of active material, and capacity per gram of active material ([0031]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the cathode and anode of modified Mizuno using the coating weights as taught by Zheng, and thus obtain a positive electrode with a coating weight that significantly overlaps the claimed range of 0.015 g/cm2 to 0.023 g/cm2, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining suitable electrodes for the battery of modified Mizuno and in preventing precipitation of lithium ions on the negative electrode surface during charging.
Selection of positive electrode coating weights within the overlapping portion of Zheng’s taught range and the claimed range would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the capacity of the electrode and further ensure the prevention of lithium ion precipitation on the negative electrode surface of modified Mizuno’s battery, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Claim(s) 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno (US PG Pub. 2015/0380768 A1), Yang (CN104966840A), Li (CN106848325A), Ihara (CN103003457B), Umeyama (US PG Pub. 2016/0380299 A1) and Zheng (US PG Pub. 2016/0093912 A1), as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Han (CN102786443B) and Eshetu ("Ultrahigh performance all solid-state lithium sulfur batteries: salt anion’s chemistry-induced anomalous synergistic effect", 2018, Journal of the American chemical society, 140(31), pp. 9921-9933).
Regarding Claims 19 – 20, modified Mizuno discloses all limitations as set forth above. Mizuno generally teaches using an electrolyte salt containing a compound represented by formula (I) (XSO2)(FSO2)NLi where X is a fluorine atom, a C- alkyl group or a C fluoroalkyl group ([0022];[0035]). Mizuno teaches using the electrolyte salt represented by the formula (I) in order to achieve improved cycle characteristics of the battery by inhibiting an increase of an internal resistance of the battery to maintain the discharge voltage at high level ([0034]). As established above, in working examples Mizuno explicitly exemplifies using LiFSI {i.e. Formula 1 where n = 1} and LiFTI {i.e. Formula 1 where n = 1}.
Modified Mizuno does not explicitly disclose wherein the compound is selected from the groups consisting of FSO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2F, FSO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2F, FSO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2C F3, CF3SO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2CF3, FSO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(LiF)SO2N-(Li+)SO2CF3, and CF3SO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2CF3, and any combinations thereof (Claim 19), and more particularly from FSO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(LiF)SO2N-(Li+)SO2CF3, CF3SO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2CF3, and a combination thereof (Claim 20).
Han teaches fluorine-containing sulfonyl imide alkali metal salts for non-aqueous electrolytes of lithium-ion batteries, particularly Han teaches a binary and ternary fluorine-containing sulfonyl imide alkali metal salt having the structural formulas (II) and (IV), respectively, where M is Li, Na, K, Rb, or Cs ([0011 – 00012];[0021 – 0027];[0032 – 0033]).
PNG
media_image1.png
179
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Formula (II) and Formula (IV) from Han.
In Formulas (II) and (IV), the RF1 and RF2 is CmF2m+1 where m = 0 – 8 and may be the same or different ([0025 – 0027]). Formulas (II) and (IV), when M is Li, significantly overlap in scope with claimed formula I. Table 8 particularly shows examples of the binary and ternary lithium imide salts, and the example Li3[(FSO2N)2(SO2)2N] (refer to last four examples in Table 8) is within the claimed list of compounds in claim 19. The imide salts are taught by Han to provide electrolytes with improved conductivity, low viscosity, a wide electrochemical window, and improved rate performance ([0084]).
Since Mizuno teaches using imide salts in lithium ion battery electrolytes with carbonate solvents in order achieve improved battery cycle characteristics, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electrolyte of Mizuno to include Li3[(FSO2N)2(SO2)2N] as a lithium salt as taught by Han, with a reasonable expectation that such an imide salt would be a functionally equivalent/suitable salt for Mizuno’s electrolyte and further would be a selection of lithium salt capable of providing an electrolyte with improved conductivity, low viscosity, a wide electrochemical window, and improved rate performance as well as a battery with the improved cycle characteristics desired by Mizuno
Li3[(FSO2N)2(SO2)2N] does not include CF3 as one or both of the Rf groups; therefore, modified Mizuno does not explicitly disclose a compound particularly selected from FSO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(LiF)SO2N-(Li+)SO2CF3, CF3SO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2CF3, or a combination thereof.
Eshetu teaches that in lithium imide salts, the -SO2CF3 and -SO2F groups of the chemical structure provide different functionalities, and when used in combination, can merge the complementary advantages of both TFSI- and FSI- (Refer to Figure 1; Abstract and final paragraph in Introduction section). The synergistic effects of using both groups in the chemical structure include a robust SEI layer, improved discharge/areal capacity, stable long-term cyclability, high Coulombic/energy efficiency, etc. (Refer to second to last paragraph in Introduction section).
While the teachings of Eshetu are in reference to solid electrolyte batteries, since both Mizuno and Han indicate that it is known in the art to use imide salts in non-aqueous electrolyte batteries, one with ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that such synergetic effects of using both -SO2CF3 and -SO2F groups in imide salts, such as improved discharge capacity or stable cyclability, would also be relevant to non-aqueous electrolyte batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Li3[(FSO2N)2(SO2)2N] salt of modified Mizuno to include a -SO2CF3 and -SO2F group rather than two -SO2F groups, as taught by Eshetu, and thus obtain Li3[FSO2N(SO2)2NSO2CF3], which is within the claimed list of compounds in claim 20, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining an lithium ion battery electrolyte with the benefits of improved discharge capacity or stable cyclability due to the synergistic effects of -SO2CF3 and -SO2F groups in the salt.
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 ARYANA Y ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM - 5:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/A.Y.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 8/19/2026
Prosecution Insights