DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the January 8th, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”).
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 Amendments
In response to the amendments received in the Remarks on January 8th, 2026:
Claims 1-2 and 4-14 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 4-6, and 8 have been amended. Claim 3 has been cancelled.
The previous objection to the claims has been overcome in light of the amendment.
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 is overcome in light of the amendment.
The cores of the previous prior art-based rejections have been overcome in light of the amendment. All changes made to the rejection are as necessitated by the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the Remarks on January 8th, 2026 with respect to claims 1-2 and 4-14 are based on the claims as amended. While Applicant’s arguments are acknowledged, they are found to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, presented below, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the Claims.
Additionally, Applicant’s argument that the instant application provides unexpected results over the prior art when a nonaqueous electrolyte comprises a molar ratio between [N(FSO2)2]- and [N(CF3SO2)2]- of 4.2:1 to less than 1:0 is not persuasive.
While Applicant is correct in stating that there is a decrease in number of cycle life at 70oC and 1C discharge rate performance (%) between Example 1 (which has a molar ratio between [N(FSO2)2]- and [N(CF3SO2)2]- that falls within the claimed range) and Example 2 (which has a molar ratio between [N(FSO2)2]- and [N(CF3SO2)2]- that falls outside of the claimed range), Example 4 satisfies the claimed range and has a lower number of cycle life at 70oC and 1C discharge performance rate (%) than Example 2 (see Tables 3 and 5 of Applicant’s own PG Publication). And, therefore, there is no evidence of an improvement in performance when the electrolyte comprises a ratio between [N(FSO2)2]- and [N(CF3SO2)2]- within the claimed range.
Accordingly this argument is not found to be persuasive.
Prior Art
Matsumoto US PG Publication 2011/0070504 (“Matsumoto”)
Lim US PG Publication 2017/0309960 (“Lim”)
Previously cited Iwasaki US PG Publication 2017/0077494 (“Iwasaki”)
Claim Interpretation
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 § 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)).
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]).
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
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MASON RUGGIERO 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 on (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.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729