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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-4, 7 and 9-10 in the reply filed on 06/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11, 13-16, 20-22, 27, 29, 31-34, 36, and 38 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/23/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-11, 13-16, 20-22, 27, 29, 31-34, and 38 are currently pending in the application, of claims 11, 13-16, 20-22, 27, 29, 31-34, 36, and 38 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 5-6, 8, 12, 17-19, 23-26, 30, 35 and 37 were previously cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 7 and 9-10 are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 8, it is suggested to amend “Rfs” to - -Rf- -.
In claim 1, line 12, it is suggested to amend “Rs” to - -R- -.
In claim 7, line 2, it is suggested to amend “the content” to - -a content- -
In claim 9, lines 5 and 7, it is suggested to amend “the content” to - -a content- -
In claim 10, it is suggested to amend “according to claim 1” to - -according to claim 9- -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7 and 9-10 are 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 1 recites the limitation:
PNG
media_image1.png
332
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is not clear how in chemical formula 1, Rf substitution is a fluorine atom or a trifluoromethyl group and also contains a fluorine-containing sulfonamide compound of formula 2. In the specification, it appears that compound of formula (2) is added with the electrolyte solution. As such, for purposes of examination, it would be interpreted that the compound of formula 2 is in the electrolyte solution as a lithium salt in addition to the compound in formula 1 and the solvent.
Regarding dependent 2-4, 7 and 9-10, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above and are rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the content of LiPF6" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, claim 10 will be interpreted to depend of claim 9.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwaya (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0300439).
Regarding claims 1-3, Iwaya teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte solution comprising a non-aqueous solvent and a lithium salt, wherein the non-aqueous solvent contains a carbonate solvent, the lithium salt contains a fluorine-containing cyclic sulfonylimide salt represented by the following general formula (1) and (2) (paragraph [0025]):
PNG
media_image2.png
132
178
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Further, Iwaya teaches the electrolyte solution contains N,N-dimethylmethanesulfonamide or N,N-diethylmethanesulfonamide (paragraph [0047]), which can encompass the claimed formula 2 for the fluorine-containing sulfonamide. Further, Iwaya teaches the content of the compound in formula 2 is at most 5 vol% (paragraph [0042) which overlap the claimed ranges (“at most 5 vol%” = 0 ≤ 50,000 ppm by volume).
It is noted that Iwaya differ in the exact same range as recited in the instant claim however, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range of Iwaya overlap the instant claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It has been held in the courts that 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, Iwaya teaches the content of the fluorine-containing cyclic sulfonylimide salt represented by the general formula (1) is 0.8 mol or more and 1.5 mol or less relative to 1 L of the non-aqueous solvent (paragraph [0026]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwaya (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0300439) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ohzuku et al. (U.S. Patent 8,673,505).
Regarding claim 4, Iwaya teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte solution as described above in claim 1.
Iwaya is silent with regards to the limitation “the non-aqueous solvent contains acetonitrile in an amount of 3% by volume or more and 97% by volume or less relative to the total amount of the non-aqueous solvent.”
Ohzuku, also directed to a non-aqueous electrolyte (C13:L30-45), teaches the electrolyte includes a main solvent such as acetonitrile in the amount of 50% vol or more (C5:L10-15). Further Ohzuku teaches the solvent allows rate performance to become excellent (C5:L15-17).
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 Iwaya electrolyte to include acetonitrile in an amount of 50% by vol as taught by Ohzuku, in order to increase rate performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 are 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. In other words, claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to incorporate either:
all the limitations of claim 1 and claim 9
Applicant is encouraged to consider amending claim 1 accordingly to place the application in condition of allowance.
The prior art whether alone or in combination do not teach or fairly suggest the limitations “wherein the lithium salt contains the fluorine-containing cyclic sulfonylimide salt represented by the general formula (1) and LiPF6,the non-aqueous solvent contains vinylene carbonate and/or fluoroethylene carbonate, the content of the fluorine-containing cyclic sulfonylimide salt represented by the general formula (1) is 2.5 or more, in terms of a molar ratio, relative to the content of LiPF6, and the content of LiPF6 is 0.01 or more and 4 or less relative to the contents of vinylene carbonate and fluoroethylene carbonate, in terms of a molar ratio.” as recited in claim 10 in combination with claim 1.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sundermeyer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0245387). Sundermeyer teaches an electrolyte containing lithium salts with sulfonamides (paragraph [0063]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 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, 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.
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights