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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on June 26th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on June 26th, 2026:
Claims 1-2 and 4-19 are pending in the current application. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 3 has been cancelled. Claims 15-19 are newly added.
Claim 1 has been amended to further specify an organic fluorine compound. The amendment is supported by the Applicant’s originally filed disclosure, including paragraph [0028] of Applicant’s own PG Publication.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the Remarks on June 26th, 2026 with respect to Claims 1-2 and 4-19 have been acknowledged, however, they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that the instant nonaqueous electrolyte provides unexpected results over the prior art when the electrolyte comprises no more than 10 wt% of an organic fluorine compound is not persuasive.
Applicant highlights Examples 1 and 2 of the instant specification and states that Example 1 meets the instant claim limitations while Example 2 fails to. This statement is false. Example 1 comprises 50 wt% S222FSI, 10 wt% S222TFSI, and 40 wt% LiFSI while Example 2 comprises 60 wt% S222FSI and 40 wt% LiFSI. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that both of these examples comprise “no more than 10 wt% of an organic fluorine compound” as neither of these examples comprise an organic fluorine compound (and 0 wt% is no more than 10 wt%).
Further, based on Applicant’s definition of “an organic fluorine compound” the only Example that comprises an organic fluorine compound is Example 18 (5 wt% FEC). While Example 18 does have the highest number of cycle life at 70oC (Table 5), Example 18 merely proves that an inclusion of an organic fluorine compound can improve the cycle life characteristics of the electrolyte. There being no example having a wt% of an organic fluorine compound that exceeds 10 wt% invalidates the upper limit argument.
Additionally, based on Applicant’s argument – it would appear that Applicant is arguing that S222TFSI reads on the instantly claimed “organic fluorine compound.” This would further prove that Applicant’s argument of unexpected results is not persuasive. As Example 4 has 10 wt% S222TFSI, however, has a lower number of cycle life at 70oC than Example 2 which does not comprise S222TFSI and Example 20 which comprises 16 wt% S223TFSI.
Based on this argument, the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant’s argument that the electrolyte of Matsumoto has a lower content of the ionic liquid is not persuasive.
Applicant highlights that Matsumoto teaches an electrolyte further comprising a phosphoric acid ester derivative. While Applicant is correct in stating that the electrolyte of Matsumoto can comprise components that are not claimed in the instant claim limitations, there are no claim limitations that would inhibit the inclusion of additional components (the electrolyte would still comprise the claimed ionic liquid even if it also comprised additional components).
Applicant also argues that since the ionic liquid of Matsumoto comprises other components that it fails to read on the instantly claimed molar ratios. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a molar ratio between component A and component B would still be 1:1 whether the solution comprises 1 mol% A, 1 mol% B, and 98 mol% C or 50 mol% A and 50 mol% B. And, therefore, the ionic liquid of Matsumoto is capable of both reading on the instantly claimed molar ratios and comprising additional components.
Based on this argument, the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant’s argument that because the solution of Lim is a solvent it cannot read on the instantly claimed ionic liquid is not persuasive.
This argument is not persuasive for two reasons. First, Lim is used to modify the ionic liquid of Matsumoto. And a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the benefits of Lim would be true regardless whether or not they were used in what could be considered an ionic liquid.
Second, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an ionic liquid is capable of being used as a solvent for electrolytes. And, therefore, the solvent of Lim is able to read on the instantly claimed ionic liquid.
Based on this argument, the rejection of record is maintained.
Therefore, the rejection of record is maintained and any amendments to the rejection are as necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
The claim limitation, “wherein a molar ratio between the lithium ion and the trialkylsulfonium ion is from 1:4 to 4:1” (Claim 1 lines 3-5) is interpreted such that the range encompasses 20 mol% to 80 mol% lithium ion based on the total amount of lithium ion and trialkylsulfonium ion.
The claim limitation, “wherein a molar ratio between [N(FSO2)2]- and [N(CF3SO2)2]- is from 4.2:1 to less than 1:0” (Claim 1 lines 5-6) is interpreted such that the range encompasses 81 mol% to less than 100 mol% [N(FSO2)2]- based on the total amount of [N(FSO2)2]- and [N(CF3SO2)2]-.
The claim limitation, “wherein a molar ratio between [N(FSO2)2]- and [N(CF3SO2)2]- is from 9:1 to less than 1:0” (Claim 4 lines 2-3) is interpreted such that the range encompasses 90 mol% to less than 100 mol% [N(FSO2)2]- based on the total amount of [N(FSO2)2]- and [N(CF3SO2)2]-.
The claim limitation, “wherein a molar ratio between [N(FSO2)2]- and [N(CF3SO2)2]- is from 4.2:1 to 9:1” (Claim 5 lines 2-3) is interpreted such that the range encompasses 81 mol% to 90 mol% [N(FSO2)2]- based on the total amount of [N(FSO2)2]- and [N(CF3SO2)2]-.
The claim limitation, “wherein a molar ratio between the lithium ion and the trialkylsulfonium ion is from 1:3 to 2:1” (Claim 6 lines 2-3) is interpreted such that the range encompasses 25 mol% to 67 mol% lithium ion based on the total amount of lithium ion and trialkylsulfonium ion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 18 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.
Claim 18, line 2 recites the limitation “an organic fluorine compound.” It is wholly unclear whether this “organic fluorine compound” is in reference to the “organic fluorine compound” in lines 6-7 of Claim 1 (from which Claim 18 depends) or is an entirely separate “organic fluorine compound.”
Further clarification is required.
Prior Art
Previously cited Matsumoto US PG Publication 2011/0070504 (“Matsumoto”)
Previously cited Lim US PG Publication 2017/0309960 (“Lim”)
Previously cited Iwasaki US PG Publication 2017/0077494 (“Iwasaki”)
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto US PG Publication 2011/0070504 in view of Lim US PG Publication 2017/0309960.
Regarding Claim 1, Matsumoto discloses a [nonaqueous] electrolyte ([0017], entire disclosure dependent upon) comprising an ionic liquid ([0017]-[0018]) comprising a cation and an anion ([0020]), the cation comprising a trialkylsulfonium ion (such as triethylsulfonium/triethylsulphonium) ([0033], [0120]) and a lithium ion ([0018], [0065], [0078]), and the anion comprising [N(FSO2)2]- and [N(CF3SO2)2]- ([0035]).
Matsumoto discloses wherein a molar ratio between the lithium ion and the trialkylsulfonium ion is 1:2.19 (which corresponds to roughly 31 mol% lithium ion, which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 1:4 to 4:1) (See Example 31 [0120] – wherein the mixed solution comprises 60 vol% TESFSI (which has a molar density of about 3.65 mol/L) and 1 mol/L LiFSI, and, therefore, the skilled artisan would recognize that 1 mol of the solution would comprise 1 mol lithium ion (through LiFSI) and 2.19 mol trialkylsulfonium ion (through TESFSI)), and
wherein the nonaqueous electrolyte does not comprise (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of no more than 10 wt%) an organic fluorine compound (Example 31, [0120]).
Matsumoto fails to disclose a molar ratio between [N(FSO2)2]- and [N(CF3SO2)2]- is from 4.2:1 to less than 1:0.
However, Lim discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte solution comprising at least lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI – which comprises the claimed [N(FSO2)2]- ) ([0026]-[0027], entire disclosure dependent upon).
Lim teaches the combination of LiFSI and lithium bis(trifluoromethansulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI - which comprises the claimed [N(CF3SO2)2]-) in a molar ratio from 6:1 to 9:1 in order to maximize battery output characteristics and capacity characteristics (Claims 2-3, [0028]-[0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrolyte of Matsumoto such that the molar ratio between [N(FSO2)2]- and [N(CF3SO2)2]- is 6:1 to 9:1 (which corresponds to about 86 mol% to 90 mol% [N(FSO2)2]-, which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 4.2:1 to less than 1:0) in order to maximize battery output characteristics and capacity characteristics, as taught by Lim.
Regarding Claim 2, Matsumoto in view of Lim teaches the instantly claimed electrolyte according to Claim 1, and Matsumoto discloses wherein the trialkylsulfonium ion is a triethylsulfonium ion ([0033], [0120]).
Regarding Claim 4, Matsumoto in view of Lim teaches the instantly claimed electrolyte according to Claim 1, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1) Matsumoto in view of Lim discloses wherein a molar ratio between [N(FSO2)2]- and [N(CF3SO2)2]- is 6:1 to 9:1 (which overlaps the claimed range of 9:1 to less than 1:0)1 (Lim Claims 2-3, [0028]-[0029]).
1 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).
Regarding Claim 5, Matsumoto in view of Lim teaches the instantly claimed electrolyte according to Claim 1, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1) Matsumoto in view of Lim discloses wherein a molar ratio between [N(FSO2)2]- and [N(CF3SO2)2]- is 6:1 to 9:1 (which overlaps the claimed range of 4.2:1 to 9:1)1 (Lim Claims 2-3, [0028]-[0029]).
Regarding Claim 6, Matsumoto in view of Lim teaches the instantly claimed electrolyte according to Claim 1, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1) Matsumoto discloses wherein a molar ratio between the lithium ion and the trialkylsulfonium ion is 1:2.19 (which corresponds to roughly 31 mol% lithium ion, which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 1:3 to 2:1) ([0120]).
Regarding Claim 7, Matsumoto discloses a secondary battery ([0017]) comprising a positive electrode ([0017]), a negative electrode ([0017]), and the nonaqueous electrolyte of Matsumoto in view of Lim as described in the rejection of Claim 1 ([0017]).
Regarding Claim 8, Matsumoto in view of Lim teaches the instantly claimed secondary battery according to Claim 7, and Matsumoto discloses wherein the positive electrode comprises a material selected from a group comprising lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2) and lithium manganese oxide (LiMn2O4) (which meets the claim limitation of one or more selected from the group consisting of a lithium nickel manganese oxide having a spinel structure, a lithium cobalt oxide, a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide, a lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide, a lithium cobalt phosphate, and a lithium manganese oxide) ([0055]).
Regarding Claim 9, Matsumoto in view of Lim teaches the instantly claimed secondary battery according to Claim 8, and Matsumoto discloses wherein the negative electrode comprises a carbonaceous material such as pyrocarbon, coke, graphite, glass-like carbon, carbon fiber, activated carbon, and black lead (which meets the claim limitation of one or more selected from the group consisting of a lithium metal, a lithium alloy, a carbonaceous material, silicon, a silicon oxide, a titanium-containing oxide, a niobium-containing oxide, and a titanium-niobium-containing oxide) ([0057]).
Regarding Claim 15, Matsumoto in view of Lim teaches the instantly claimed nonaqueous electrolyte according to Claim 1. Claim 15 puts forth limitations on the nonaqueous electrolyte of Claim 1 in the scenario where the nonaqueous electrolyte comprises an organic fluorine compound, however, as currently written Claim 1 does not require that an organic fluorine compound is included. Therefore, Matsumoto in view of Lim is considered to meet the requisite limitations of Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 16, Matsumoto in view of Lim teaches the instantly claimed nonaqueous electrolyte according to Claim 1. Claim 16 puts forth limitations on the nonaqueous electrolyte of Claim 1 in the scenario where the nonaqueous electrolyte comprises an organic fluorine compound, however, as currently written Claim 1 does not require that an organic fluorine compound is included. Therefore, Matsumoto in view of Lim is considered to meet the requisite limitations of Claim 16.
Regarding Claim 17, Matsumoto in view of Lim teaches the instantly claimed nonaqueous electrolyte according to Claim 1, and Matsumoto discloses wherein the nonaqueous electrolyte does not comprise (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of no more than 5 wt%) the organic fluorine compound (Example 31, [0120]).
Regarding Claim 18, Matsumoto in view of Lim teaches the instantly claimed nonaqueous electrolyte according to Claim 1, and Matsumoto discloses wherein the nonaqueous electrolyte does not comprise the organic fluorine compound (Example 31, [0120]).
Regarding Claim 19, Matsumoto in view of Lim teaches the instantly claimed nonaqueous electrolyte according to Claim 1, and Matsumoto discloses wherein the nonaqueous electrolyte comprises the ionic liquid in a range of 100 wt% (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 90 wt% to 100 wt%) (in the instance wherein the ionic liquid further comprises the entirety of the TESFSI, TMP, EC/DEC, and LiFSI) (Example 31, [0120]).
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto US PG Publication 2011/0070504 in view of Lim US PG Publication 2017/0309960, as applied to 7, further in view of Iwasaki US PG Publication 2017/0077494.
Regarding Claim 10, Matsumoto in view of Lim teaches the instantly claimed battery of Claim 7.
While Matsumoto discloses a coin cell, Matsumoto in view of Lim fails to explicitly disclose a battery pack.
However, Iwasaki discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte battery ([0002]) including a negative electrode, a positive electrode, and a nonaqueous electrolyte ([0021]).
Iwasaki teaches the use of a battery pack for comprising the nonaqueous electrolyte battery ([0174]), wherein the battery pack comprises a protective circuit ([0176]); an external power distribution terminal ([0177]); and a plurality of secondary batteries connected in: series, parallel, or a combination of series and parallel ([0175]) such that the battery can be used to power a vehicle ([0176]-[0177], [0189]) or an alternative power source such as electronic devices ([0176]) and the battery pack is configured to recover regenerative energy caused by the power of the vehicle ([0191]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of Matsumoto in view of Lim to be within a battery pack, wherein the battery pack comprises a protective circuit, an external power distribution terminal, and a plurality of secondary batteries connected in: series, parallel, or a combination of series and parallel such that the battery can be used to a power a vehicle or an alternative power source such as electronic devices and the battery pack is configured to recover regenerative energy caused by the power of the vehicle, as taught by Iwasaki.
Regarding Claim 11, Matsumoto in view of Lim and Iwasaki teaches the instantly claimed battery pack of Claim 10, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 10) the battery pack of Matsumoto in view of Lim and Iwasaki further comprises:
an external power distribution terminal (Iwasaki [0177]); and
a protective circuit (Iwasaki [0176]).
Regarding Claim 12, Matsumoto in view of Lim and Iwasaki teaches the instantly claimed battery pack of Claim 10, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 10) the battery pack of Matsumoto in view of Lim and Iwasaki comprises a plurality of secondary batteries, wherein the secondary batteries are electrically connected in series, in parallel, or in a combination of series and parallel (Iwasaki [0175]).
Regarding Claim 13, Matsumoto in view of Lim and Iwasaki teaches the instantly claimed battery pack of Claim 10, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 10) Matsumoto in view of Lim and Iwasaki discloses a vehicle comprising the battery pack according to Claim 10 (Iwasaki [0176]-[0177], [0189]).
Regarding Claim 14, Matsumoto in view of Lim and Iwasaki teaches the instantly claimed battery pack of Claim 10, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 10) Matsumoto in view of Lim and Iwasaki discloses a stationary power supply (such as an electronic device) comprising the battery pack according to Claim 10 (Iwasaki [0176]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MASON MELFI whose telephone number is (703)756-4652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-6pm 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/O.M.M./
Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights