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 .
Status of the Claims
The amendment/remarks submitted 06/10/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 11-16 are pending. Claims 1-10 are cancelled. Claims 13-16 are new. Claim 11 is amended. Claims 11-16 are examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0131193 A1 (“Ji”) in view of US 2010/0316908 A1 (“Yoshimura”) and US 2020/0287234 A1 (“Umetsu”).
Regarding claims 11-12, Ji discloses a lithium ion battery comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, a separator between the first electrode and the second electrode, and an electrolytic solution; where one of the first electrode and the second electrode is a cathode and the other of the first electrode and the second electrode is an anode ([0063]). Ji discloses the anode comprises graphite ([0059]). Ji discloses the cathode comprises NCM811 (i.e. LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2) ([0052]). This anticipates the claimed Chemical Formula 11 when x=1, a=0.8, and b=c=0.1.
The electrolyte comprises a solvent and a lithium-containing salt ([0063]-[0071]). The electrolyte further comprises one or more additives ([0072]). The additives are symmetrical or asymmetrical alkylsulfonyl imide or cyclic alkylene sulfonylimide metal salts, which are fully fluorinated ([0073]). The additives are represented by the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
93
137
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where X is lithium, and R1 and R2 are fluorine, fully fluorinated linear alkyl groups, or bonded with each other to create a fully fluorinated cyclic alkylene sulfonylimide salt ([0075]-[0079]). (Note: Given the description of the additive as an alkylsulfonyl imide and the subsequent examples, the double-bonded R1 appears to be a typo and should be O.)
Ji discloses an example is
PNG
media_image2.png
83
129
media_image2.png
Greyscale
lithium 1,2,3-dithiazolidine-4,4,5,5-tetrafluoro-1,1,3,3-tetraoxide ([0099]).
Ji discloses the R1 and R2 may be the same (symmetrical) and include F ([0077]). This would result in the compound lithium bis(flurosulfonyl)imide.
Ji discloses one or more additives can be used ([0072]) but does not expressly disclose the specific claimed combination of a mixture of a lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide and a bis(sulfonyl)imide lithium salt represented by Chemical Formula
PNG
media_image3.png
71
80
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide and the bis(sulfonyl)imide lithium salt represented by the Chemical Formula are present in a molar ratio of 1:1.
Yoshimura discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondar battery (Abstract). Yoshimura further discloses the electrolyte contains one or more lithium salts other than those represented by formulae (1) and (2) are included. It is especially preferable to include at least one compound selected from a chain imide salt represented by formula (3) and a cyclic imide salt represented by formula (4). This is because not only an effect for suppressing corrosion of the positive electrode is held, but a good conductivity is obtainable, and excellent high-temperature characteristic and cycle characteristic are obtainable. Even in the case where a charge final voltage is increased to 4.25 V or more, these effects are kept, and therefore, a high energy density can be achieved ([0039]). LiN(FSO2)2 (LiFSI or lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide) is disclosed as an example of the chain imide salt represented by formula (3) ([0042]). The compound represented by Formula (4a)
PNG
media_image4.png
93
99
media_image4.png
Greyscale
is disclosed as an example of the cyclic imide salt represented by formula (4) ([0044]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include both the claimed additives for the reasons taught by Yoshimura.
Regarding the molar ratio of 1:1, because Yoshimura teaches the effect of including both chain and cyclic imide salts, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the ratio thereof through routine experimentation in pursuit of optimizing the disclosed effect. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Ji does not expressly disclose the lithium salt is present at a concentration of 0.3 to 0.8 M.
Umetsu discloses a lithium ion secondary cell (Abstract). Umetsu discloses the concentration of lithium salt in the nonaqueous electrolyte as the total concentration of lithium salts is within the range of 0.5-2.0 mol/L (i.e. M). If the lithium salt concentration is 0.5 mol/L or more, battery capacity can be made to be sufficiently high since ample anions are present. In the case the lithium salt concentration is 2.0 mol/L or less, precipitation of undissolved lithium salt in the nonaqueous electrolyte and excessively high viscosity of the nonaqueous electrolyte can be prevented and there is less susceptibility to decreases in conductivity and output characteristics, thereby making this preferable ([0224]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the total concentration of lithium salt, and therefore the claimed lithium salt concentration, in the nonaqueous electrolyte as taught by Umetsu to provide high battery capacity while limiting decreases in conductivity and output characteristics.
Regarding claim 13, modified Ji discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 11. Ji discloses the total amount of the additive(s) is from about 1 wt% to about 9 wt% ([0072]). The Office acknowledges the difference in units. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the total concentration of the additives through routine experimentation in furthering the purpose of the additives, namely to form a stable, electronically insulating but ionically conducting SEI layer on the surface of Si anodes, which enables the electrochemical stability of Li-ion batteries when cycled at higher voltages and helps with calendar life of the batteries ([0047]). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, modified Ji discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 11. Ji discloses the solvent comprises a fluorine-substituted cyclic carbonate, such as fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), difluoroethylene carbonate (F2EC or DiFEC), or trifluoropropylene carbonate (TFPC) ([0065]-[0067]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Ji discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 14. Ji discloses FEC is included at a concentration of 5% or more ([0067]). The claimed range would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the amount of fluorine-substituted cyclic carbonate disclosed by Ji overlaps the amount of fluorine-substituted cyclic carbonate as claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Furthermore, “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 16, modified Ji discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 11. Ji discloses examples of the lithium-containing salt including lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6), lithium tetrafluoroborate (LiBF4), lithium hexafluoroarsenate monohydrate (LiAsF6), lithium perchlorate (LiClO4), lithium bis(oxalato)borate (LiBOB, i.e. LiB(C2O4)2), and lithium triflate (LiCF3SO3) ([0112]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues it is technically difficult to predict the battery configuration and improved characteristics of amended independent claim 11 from the disclosure of Ji. However, applicant’s argument is unsupported by evidence. It is of particular note that Ji discloses the anode comprises graphite ([0059]) and additives of symmetrical alkylsulfonyl imide or cyclic alkylene sulfonylimide metal salts, which are fully fluorinated ([0073]).
Yoshimura is relied upon for the teaching of including a chain imide salt represented by formula (3) (such as LiFSI) and a cyclic imide salt represented by formula (4) (such as formula (4a) which corresponds to the claimed Chemical Formula) for the purpose of suppressing corrosion of the positive electrode and obtaining good conductivity and excellent high-temperature characteristic and cycle characteristic. It appears that the battery of Ji would appreciate the benefits disclosed by Yoshimura. Applicant argues the specific descriptions or examples of Yoshimura do not use a combination of chain and cyclic compounds. However, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues given that the composition of the electrolyte additives and the type of negative electrode active material differ, it is contrary to the technical common sense of one of ordinary skill in the art to predict that the same effect of improving battery characteristics will be realized even if the lithium salt concentration described in Umetsu is applied to the electrolytic solution of the present invention. However, this argument is unsupported by evidence. Moreover, Umetsu provides direct motivation to optimize the amount of the lithium salt. If the lithium salt concentration is 0.5 mol/L or more, battery capacity can be made to be sufficiently high since ample anions are present. In the case the lithium salt concentration is 2.0 mol/L or less, precipitation of undissolved lithium salt in the nonaqueous electrolyte and excessively high viscosity of the nonaqueous electrolyte can be prevented and there is less susceptibility to decreases in conductivity and output characteristics, thereby making this preferable ([0224]). It appears that Ji would appreciate the benefits disclosed by Umetsu.
Applicant appears to argue the presence of unexpected results in the claimed invention and references the declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 dated 01/26/2026. Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). In this case, it is noted that while the molar ratio of the two additives is recited in the independent claim, the concentration of the additives is not. It is also noted that the composition of the lithium salt is not recited in the independent claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Scott Carrico whose telephone number is (571)270-5504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:15AM-6PM 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.
Robert Scott Carrico
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/Robert S Carrico/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights