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 Claims
Claims 1-28 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed on 1/21/2026 and 3/23/2026 have been entered.
102 rejections based on Sakuma et al have been withdrawn in view of the arguments.
102 rejections based on Morinaka et al have been withdrawn in view of the arguments.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 for Structure 5 that R13 is a nitrogen containing ring structure, and the claim also recites that R13 is any one of cyclopentane, cyclohexane, 2 or 3-tetrahydrofuran 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. For purposes of examination, R13 is considered to be the broader limitation with nitrogen containing ring structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jeong et al (US 20210159541 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 14, Claim 15,
Jeong teaches an electrolyte for an electrochemical device (lithium battery; Paragraph 0016) having an alkali-metal anode having an anode-active material comprising an alkali metal (Paragraph 0066; common anode active material includes a lithium metal, a metal alloyable with lithium)
the electrolyte comprising: at least one alkali-metal salt dissolved in the one or more sulfonyl-based solvents (Paragraph 0035),
the alkali-metal salt having a cation comprising the alkali metal of the anode-active material (Paragraph 0018; a lithium salt including lithium hexafluorophosphate LiPF6, lithium bisfluorosulfonyl imide LiFSI, lithium tetrafluoroborate LiBF4 etc).
a sulfonyl-based solvent system comprising one or more sulfonyl-based solvents (Paragraph 0036; electrolyte solution includes a sulfone compound represented by formula 1 as shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
91
253
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In formula 1, atleast one of R1 and R2 may be a fluorine atom or a C1-C12 chain hydrocarbon substituted with a fluorine atom. Jeong also teaches that an example of the sulfone compound is trifluoromethanesulfonyl fluoride (Paragraph 0042). This chemical is the same as the formula as claimed in Structure 1; R1-SO2-R2 wherein each of R1 and R2 is any one of -F, or -CF3 etc, and R1≠ R2.
Regarding Claim 2,
Jeong teaches the use of a non-sulfonyl based solvent such as carbonate based compound, a ketone based compound, an alcohol based compound (Paragraph 0025).
Regarding Claim 3,
Jeong teaches that the sulfone based compound may be used alone in the electrolyte (Paragraph 0043).
Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ugawa et al (JP 2005166290 A; machine translation).
Regarding Claim 1, 4, 8 and 9,
Ugawa teaches an electrolyte for secondary battery that contains Formula 1 and Formula 2 as below where in X1 represents a hydrogen or halogen group, R1 and R2 represent a group containing carbon, and are bonded to the nitrogen through the carbon (Paragraph 0007 and 0008).
PNG
media_image2.png
139
161
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
140
174
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Specific examples of compounds are below
PNG
media_image4.png
150
224
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
148
221
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Compound 7 above is akin to a compound represented by claimed formula of structure 2 wherein R3, R4 and R5 are -CH2- (and hydrogen atom to complete valency).
Compound 10 above is akin to a compound represented by claimed formula of Structure 3 wherein R6, R7, and R8 are -CH2- (and hydrogen atom to complete valency).
Regarding Claim 5,
Ugawa teaches that the electrolyte contains at least one selected from the group consisting of a compound with Chemical formula 1, and a compound with Chemical formula 2 (formulas as shown above; Paragraph 0006).
Regarding Claim 6,
Ugawa teaches the use of other solvents such as ethylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate etc (paragraph 0016).
Regarding Claim 7,
Ugawa teaches Formula 2 which reads on the claimed formula of CH3CH=CHSO2N(CH3)(CH2CH3). Ugawa teaches the NSO2 structure connected to hydrocarbon groups which include the moieties of claimed formula connected to the NSO2 structure. Hence, Ugawa anticipates the claimed formula.
Claims 1, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al (KR 20130120172 A; machine translation).
Lee teaches an electrolyte comprising an anion receptor having a nitrogen atom introduced into a ring, and further provides specific examples as shown below. This structure shows a nitrogen containing ring structure, attached to NSO2CF3 structure. This is akin to the claimed formula of structure 5 shown in Claims 1, 12, and 13.
PNG
media_image6.png
61
115
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Lee also teaches in Paragraph 0207 a method to make the compound above using the non-fluorinated ring structure. This structure also reads on the claimed formula.
PNG
media_image7.png
61
131
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Singh et al (US 20230322661 A1).
Regarding Claim 10,
Jeong teaches one of the claimed structures of independent Claim 1, but does not specifically teach the sulfonyl based solvents of structure 4.
However, Singh teaches an N,N-branched sulfamoyl fluoride compound that can be used in electrolyte solvents and additives in electrochemical devices such as lithium batteries (Paragraph 0015).
Singh teaches the sulfamoyl fluoride product to be N-ethyl-N-methoxyethyl sulfamoyl fluoride (Paragraph 0037). This chemical is the same as when in the claimed structure 4 R9-SO2N-(R10)(R11); R9 = F (x=0, z=0), R11 = ethyl (x=1), and R10 = methoxyethyl (x= 1, y=1). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sulfamoyl compound in Singh into the electrolyte solution of Jeong in order to provide high electrochemical stability in batteries (Paragraph 0003).
Regarding Claim 11,
Singh does not specifically teach a sulfonyl based solvent from the claimed list of compounds. However, it teaches that the N,N-branched sulfamoyl compound is F-SO2-NR2 wherein, each R is a linear or branched alkyl, fluoroalkyl, alkenyl, etc with 1 to 12 carbon atoms (Paragraph 0015). Furthermore, Singh states that alkyl groups can be optionally substituted with an alkoxide (Paragraph 0019). Hence, when the R groups are alkoxide such as methoxyethyl then it reads on the claimed structure of FSO2N[(CH2)2OCH3]2. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed formula by applying the formula in Singh into the electrolyte of Jeong in order to provide high electrochemical stability in batteries (Paragraph 0003).
Claims 16-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Ugawa.
Regarding Claims 16, 17, 24, 25,
Jeong does not teach the presence of N-ethyl, N-methyl sulfamoyl fluoride or N,N -dimethysulfamoyl fluoride, or BMSF or DESF specifically.
However, Ugawa teaches the generic formula 16 as shown below.
PNG
media_image8.png
133
289
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Wherein X2 is halogen group, and Y21 and Y22 represent a hydrogen group, Z21 and Z22 represent a hydrogen group, or alkyl group (Paragraph 0032). This formula reads on the specific claimed chemicals of DSF, EMSF, DESF, BMSF. Furthermore, Ugawa teaches that the electrolyte can contain at least one from the above group, which would imply that more than one of these types of sulfamoyl compounds can be added to the electrolyte (Paragraph 0019). Ugawa teaches that the compounds have an unpaired electron in nitrogen and thus, can effectively capture free acid generated by the decomposition of the salt and it then suppresses self-discharge. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine DSF and EMSF as claimed in order to suppress self discharge when battery is left under high temperature conditions (Paragraph 0005).
Regarding Claims 18, 19,
Jeong does not teach that the DSF:EMSF ratio by volume, weight, and mole is in a range of 5:95 to 95:5 or 50:50 to 95:5.
However, Ugawa teaches a combination of sulfamoyl compounds (as depicted by formula 16), and further states that the concentrations of the compound are not particularly limited (Paragraph 0041). Ugawa also clarifies that an example of chemical formula 8 is the compound shown in chemical formula 16 (paragraph 0031). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the DSF:EMSF compounds in the claimed range in order to suppress self discharge when battery if left under high temperature conditions (Paragraph 0005).
Regarding Claims 20, 21, 22, 23,
Jeong teaches the use of LIFSI as lithium salt, and states that the content may be preferably from 0.01 mol to 1.2 mol in order to improve high temperature characteristics (Paragraph 0020). This range is within the claimed ranges of 0.1 to 5.5 M, or 0.9 to 3.5 M, or 2.5 to 3.5 M, 2 to 3 M. Also, per Ugawa more than one compounds represented by chemical formula 16 can be combined, and this implies the combination of DSF and EMSF, or the use of EMSF as claimed. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the lithium salt molar amount in the sulfamoyl solvent system in order to improve ion conductivity.
Claim(s) 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong and Ugawa, and further in view of Park et al (US 2020/0251780 A1).
Jeong and Ugawa teach the use of electrolyte compound belonging to sulfamoyl fluoride group, and particularly based on Ugawa’s Chemical formula 16, one of the compounds that can be utilized is BMSF as claimed. Ugawa does not teach the use of 5.5M of LiFSI per liter of BMSF, or the use of ethylene glycol diethyl ether, or the LiFSI concentration in a range of 2.5 M to 4.5 M.
However, Park teaches an electrolyte with a lithium salt, a non-aqueous solvent, and an unsaturated sulfone compound. Park teaches the use of LiFSI (Paragraph 005) as lithium salt, and that the concentration of the lithium salt may be in the range of about 0.1 M to about 5 M per liter. It also states that the appropriate concentration of lithium salt may be determined by a person of skill in the art without undue experimentation (Paragraph 0056). The range of Park includes the claimed molar range of LiFSI.
Park also teaches the use of non-aqueous solvents that are ether based such as tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether, dibutyl ether etc. These are non-limiting examples (Paragraph 0061), and would include the use of ethylene glycol diethyl ether as a non-aqueous solvent.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the LiFSI, BMSF and DEE in the claimed ratios in order to provide a lithium secondary battery with enhanced stability by reducing side reactions between the Ni cations and the SEI that cause degradation of the SEI film (Paragraph 0044).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Jeong teaches that the sulfone additive ranges from about 1 wt% to 10 wt% based on 100 wt % of the total weight of the lithium salt, solvent and additive (Paragraph 0044).
Lee teaches the chemical structure as shown in structure 5 of Claim 1 and Claim 12, but does not support the weight % range as claimed. Lee teaches that the electrolyte includes the compound of Formula 1 in an amount of 0.01 to 40% by weight based on 100% by weight of the electrolyte. If the content is less than 0.01% by weight, the ionic conductivity can not be improved. If the content is more than 40% by weight, the ionic conductivity of the electrolyte is lowered. Therefore, 0.1 to 20% by weight is more preferable for increasing the ionic conductivity (Paragraph 0122).
Hence, for the above reasons Claim 13 is allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see in reference to Sakuma (Pages 1-4), filed 1/21/2026, with respect to Sakuma have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102 rejection of Claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/026 with respect to Ugawa (Pages 4-8) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that structure 2 has a ring shape with R3 bonded to R4 indicated by the “-“. Examiner asserts that a notification “-“ used in a chemical formula denotes open bonds, or as a substructure as seen commonly. It does not always indicate a cyclic structure. Ugawa’s compound does have the substructure, hence examiner maintains rejections. The claim of record does not specifically cite a cyclic structure.
Applicant’s arguments, see in reference to Morinaka (Pages 8-11), filed 1/21/2026, with respect to Morinaka have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102 rejection of Claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 with respect to rejection under 102 in view of Lee have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amendment to claim 1 with respect to structure 5 is rejected in this office action under section 35 USC 112. The limitations within the structure 5 need further clarification. Based on the 112 rejection section, and the broader limitation related to Structure 5, Examiner maintains rejection of Claim 1 under Lee.
Examiner finds the arguments related to Sakuma and Morinaka persuasive. Hence, a new non-final action is entered herewith including prior art not previously cited.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached on 571-272-8519. 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.
/SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights