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
This is a final office action in response to the amendment(s) filed on 02/17/2026. Claims 1 and 3-14 are under examination. Claims 6 and 9-14 remain withdrawn from consideration.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The amendment(s) to the claim(s) filed on 02/17/2026 is acknowledged and the previous rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but were not found persuasive over the previous prior art rejection of record for the reasons set forth below. See claims 1, 3-5 and 7-8 rejections below.
Applicant argues “that Minami does not disclose “LiN(FSO2)2” (LiFSI) and therefore does not anticipate amended claim 1 and that the amended claims are patentable over Minami” (see e.g. page 9 of Applicant’s arguments).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Minami may not explicitly disclose LiN(FSO2)2, the present rejection is no longer based on anticipation by Minami alone. The claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Minami in view of Yushin. Yushin expressly discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte solution comprising LiN(FSO2)2 (LiFSI) and teaches advantages associated with the use of LiFSI including improved polymerization, mechanical properties, lithium transport, and reduced solvent diffusion through the SEI layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the non-aqueous electrolyte solution of Minami to include LiN(FSO2)2 as taught by Yushin in order to obtain the advantages taught by Yushin. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument that Minami alone does not disclose LiN(FSO2)2 does not overcome the obviousness rejection based on the combination of Minami and Yushin. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues “that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 rely on Minami anticipating claim 1 and that because Minami does not anticipate amended claim 1, Yamada and Kubota fail to cure the deficiencies of Minami” (see e.g. page 9 of Applicant’s arguments).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The current rejections are based on obviousness combinations and do not rely on Minami alone anticipating claim 1. Rather, Minami is relied upon for teaching a non-aqueous electrolyte solution including carbonate solvent and dissolved CO2 within the claimed range, while Yushin teaches the use of LiN(FSO2)2, Yamada teaches the vibrational spectrum limitation and specific positive electrode active materials, and Kubota teaches the additional electrolyte additives such as LiPO2F2. The combined teachings of the references render the claimed subject matter obvious. A reference need not disclose all claim limitations if the combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, Applicant’s argument that the secondary references do not cure the deficiencies of Minami is not persuasive because the rejection is based on the combined teachings of the references. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In conclusion, the arguments and amendments filed were not found to be persuasive over the previous prior art rejection of record. The rejections of the claims have been updated to reflect the amendments where appropriate. See claims 1, 3-5 and 7-8 rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the species LiN(FSO)2. However, the specification as originally filed does not disclose or describe the compound LiN(FSO)2. The specification instead discloses LiN(FSO2)2. The claimed species LiN(FSO)2 is therefore not supported by the originally filed disclosure and constitutes new matter. Accordingly, claim 1 lacks written description support. For the sake of expedient examination LiN(FSO2)2 was examined.
Claims 3–5 and 7–8 depend upon claim 1 and therefore are rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minami et al. (US-20080220331-A1) and further in view of Yushin et al. (US-20150325882-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Minami discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte solution (see e.g. "a nonaqueous electrolyte" in paragraph [0013]) comprising:
a sulfonylimide compound represented by LiN(CF3SO2)2 as an electrolyte salt (see e.g. "LiN(CF3SO2)2(LiTFSI)" in paragraph [0056]; in the case of the sulfonylimide compound R1 is C and R2 is F3),
an electrolyte solution solvent (see e.g. "cyclic carbonates" in paragraph [0020]), and
carbon dioxide (CO2) (see e.g. "An amount of carbon dioxide dissolved was 0.48% by weight" in paragraph [0051]),
the electrolyte solution solvent including a carbonate solvent (see e.g. "cyclic carbonates" in paragraph [0020]), and
a total amount of the at least one of carbon dioxide (CO2) dissolved being 0.48% by weight (see e.g. "An amount of carbon dioxide dissolved was 0.48% by weight" in paragraph [0051]; 0.48% by weight is equivalent to 4800 ppm).
Minami discloses a specific point within the range claimed by the instant application, thereby anticipating the claimed ranges. In the case where the prior art teaches a point within the claimed range, the claim is anticipated. See MPEP 2131.03 (I).
Minami does not disclose that the sulfonylimide compound includes LiN(FSO2)2.
Yushin, however, in the same field of endeavor, non-aqueous electrolytes for use in secondary batteries, discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte solution comprising a sulfonylimide compound represented by LiN(FSO2)2 (see e.g. “0.4M LiFSI salt solution in the mixture” in paragraph [0073] of Yushin; LiFSI is the short hand name for LiN(FSO2)2 in the art).
Yushin also teaches that including LiFSI in the non-aqueous electrolyte provides advantages such as a higher degree of polymerization, better mechanical properties, and in some cases a higher rate of Li transport and a significantly slower rate of solvent diffusion through the thus formed SEI (see e.g. paragraph [0052] of Yushin). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the claimed invention, to modify the non-aqueous electrolyte solution of Minami et al. such that it includes a sulfonylimide compound represented by LiN(FSO2)2 as taught by Yushin et al. in order to have advantages such as a higher degree of polymerization, better mechanical properties, and in some cases a higher rate of Li transport and a significantly slower rate of solvent diffusion through the thus formed SEI as suggested by Yushin.
Regarding Claim 3, Minami in view of Yushin discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte solution of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Minami in view of Yushin is silent as to a vibrational spectrum of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution showing intensities of peaks derived from the electrolyte solution solvent and therefore does not disclose that Is >Io is met in a vibrational spectrum of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution showing intensities of peaks derived from the electrolyte solution solvent, where Io is an intensity of an original peak of the electrolyte solution solvent and Is is an intensity of a peak observed when the original peak shifts.
Minami in view of Yushin, however, discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte solution that has no compositional distinction to the non-aqueous electrolyte solution discloses by the instant application. Therefore, the property of Is >Io being met in a vibrational spectrum of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution showing intensities of peaks derived from the electrolyte solution solvent, where Io is an intensity of an original peak of the electrolyte solution solvent and Is is an intensity of a peak observed when the original peak shifts would be expected and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2112 (III) and MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding Claim 4, Minami in view of Yushin discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte solution of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Minami further discloses that the electrolyte solution includes LiPF6 (see e.g. "LiPF6" in paragraph [0056]; LiPF6 is equivalent to the claimed species LiPFa(CmF2m+1)6-a when a = 6).
Regarding Claim 7, Minami in view of Yushin discloses a secondary battery (see e.g. "nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery" in paragraph [0013] of Minami) comprising:
a positive electrode (see e.g. "positive electrode" in paragraph [0013] of Minami);
a negative electrode (see e.g. "negative electrode" in paragraph [0013] of Minami); and
the non-aqueous electrolyte solution according to claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above),
the non-aqueous electrolyte solution containing a sulfonylimide compound represented by LiN(FSO2)2 as an electrolyte salt (see e.g. “0.4M LiFSI salt solution in the mixture” in paragraph [0073] of Yushin; LiFSI is the short hand name for LiN(FSO2)2 in the art),
an electrolyte solution solvent including a carbonate solvent (see e.g. “cyclic carbonates" in paragraph [0020] of Minami), and carbon dioxide (CO2) (see e.g. "An amount of carbon dioxide dissolved was 0.48% by weight" in paragraph [0051] of Minami), and a total amount of the at least one of carbon dioxide (CO2) dissolved being 0.48% by weight (see e.g. "An amount of carbon dioxide dissolved was 0.48% by weight" in paragraph [0051] of Minami; 0.48% by weight is equivalent to 4800 ppm).
Minami discloses a specific point within the range claimed by the instant application, thereby anticipating the claimed ranges. In the case where the prior art teaches a point within the claimed range, the claim is anticipated. See MPEP 2131.03 (I).
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minami et al. (US-20080220331-A1) in view of Yushin et al. (US-20150325882-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. (US-20160218394-A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Minami in view of Yushin discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte solution of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Minami in view of Yushin is silent as to a vibrational spectrum of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution showing intensities of peaks derived from the electrolyte solution solvent and therefore does not disclose that Is >Io is met in a vibrational spectrum of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution showing intensities of peaks derived from the electrolyte solution solvent, where Io is an intensity of an original peak of the electrolyte solution solvent and Is is an intensity of a peak observed when the original peak shifts.
Yamada, however, in the same field of endeavor, non-aqueous electrolyte solutions for use in secondary batteries discloses that Is >Io is met in a vibrational spectrum of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution showing intensities of peaks derived from the electrolyte solution solvent, where Io is an intensity of an original peak of the electrolyte solution solvent and Is is an intensity of a peak observed when the original peak shifts (see e.g. paragraph [0112] and FIG. 1 of Yamada).
Yamada also teaches that a secondary battery of this type to include the non-aqueous electrolyte and positive electrode active materials improves various battery characteristics such as efficiency and input-output characteristics (see e.g. paragraphs [0040] and [0271] and of Yamada). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the non-aqueous electrolyte solution of Minami et al. in view of Yushin et al. such that Is >Io is met in a vibrational spectrum of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution as taught by Yamada et al. in order to have a battery with improved efficiency and input-output characteristics as suggested by Yamada.
Regarding Claim 8, Minami in view of Yushin discloses the secondary battery of claim 7 (see e.g. claim 7 rejection above).
Minami in view of Yushin does not explicitly disclose that the positive electrode contains at least one of a positive electrode active material represented by LizNixMnyCo(1-x-y)O2 where 0.9 ≤ z ≤ 1.1, 0.2 ≤ x < 1, 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.4, and 0 < 1-x-y ≤ 0.8) or a positive electrode active material represented by LipFe1-rQr(PO4)p (where Q represents Mn or Ni, 0.9 ≤ p ≤ 1.1, and 0 ≤ r ≤ 0.05).
Yamada, however, discloses a positive electrode active material that is represented by LiNi0.50Mn0.30Co0.20O2 (see e.g. "LiNi5/10Co2/10Mn3/10O2,which is a positive electrode active material" in paragraph [0435] of Yamada; LiNi0.50Mn0.30Co0.20O2 is the same as LizNixMnyCo(1-x-y)O2 when z = 1, x = 0.5, y = 0.3 and (1-x-y) = 0.2 which simplifies to LiNi0.50Mn0.30Co0.20O2).
Yamada also teaches that a secondary battery of this type to include the non-aqueous electrolyte and positive electrode active materials improves various battery characteristics such as efficiency and input-output characteristics (see e.g. paragraphs [0040] and [0271] and of Yamada. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the positive electrode of Minami et al. in view of Yushin et al. such that the positive electrode active material is represented by LiNi0.50Mn0.30Co0.20O2 as taught by Yamada et al. in order to have a battery with improved efficiency and input-output characteristics as suggested by Yamada.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minami et al. (US-20080220331-A1) in view of Yushin et al. (US-20150325882-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kubota et al. (US-20170033402-A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Minami in view of Yushin discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte solution of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Minami in view of Yushin does not disclose that the non-aqueous electrolyte solution further comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a compound represented by M1POcFd (where M1 represents an alkali metal element, 1 ≤ c ≤ 3, and 1 ≤ d ≤ 3), a compound represented by M2(FSO3)e (where M2 represents a monovalent or divalent metal element and e is 1 or 2), and a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
219
363
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(in Chemical Formula 1, M3 represents B or P, Af+ represents a metal ion, H, or an onium ion 1, 1 ≤ f ≤ 3, 1 ≤ g ≤ 3, h is g/f, 1 ≤ i ≤ 3, 0 ≤ j ≤ 4, k is 0 or 1, R3 represents an alkylene group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms or a halogenated alkylene group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms, R4 represents F or a fluorinated alkyl group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms, and T1 and T2 each independently represent O or S).
Kubota, however, in the same field of endeavor, non-aqueous electrolyte solutions for use in secondary batteries, discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte solution that includes LiN(FSO2)2 (LiFSI), LiPF6 and LiPO2F2 (see e.g. Experimental Example 3-8 in Table 5 of Kubota; LiPO2F2 is equivalent to the claimed species M1POcFd when M1 is Li, c = 2 and d = 2, (see “lithium difluorophosphate LiPO2F2” in paragraph [0074] of the instant application).
Kubota also teaches that when utilizing a non-aqueous electrolyte of this composition chemical stability of the electrolyte solution can be improved which leads to suppression of decomposition reactions during charge and discharge of the battery and thus the capacity of the battery is less likely to decrease which improves overall battery characteristics (see e.g. paragraph [0124] of Kubota). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the non-aqueous electrolyte solution of Minami et al. in view of Yushin et al. such that it includes LiPO2F2 as taught by Kubota et al. in order to increase chemical stability of the electrolyte solution which suppresses reactions and leads to a battery with better characteristics as suggested by Kubota.
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 JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 pm EST.
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, TONG GUO can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/J.J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723