DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s amendment filed 21 September 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1, and 2 have been amended, new claims 7 and 8 have been introduced, and claims 1-8 remain pending.
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 .
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.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horikawa (JP 2008-258022, listed in the IDS filed 30 May 2025; using US 2010/0062345 for the English translation and citations, listed in the IDS filed 30 May 2025), in view of Abe et al. (WO 2017/022731 A1, hereinafter “Abe”; using the attached English machine translation for citations).
Regarding claim 1, Horikawa teaches a lithium ion secondary battery comprising:
a positive electrode having a first current collector (aluminum foil, see [0049]), and a positive electrode active material layer disposed on one surface of the first current collector (see [0049]);
a negative electrode having a second current collector (copper foil, see [0049]), and a negative electrode active material layer disposed on one surface of the second current collector (see [0049]), the negative electrode being stacked with the positive electrode such that the negative electrode active material layer opposes the positive electrode active material layer (see [0049]);
a separator disposed between the positive electrode active material layer and the negative electrode active material layer (separator, see [0049]); and
a sealing portion disposed between the first current collector and the second current collector, the sealing portion surrounding peripheries of the positive electrode active material layer and the negative electrode active material layer, and sealing an electrolytic solution in a space between the first current collector and the second current collector (portion of stainless case between the first current collector and the second current collector, see [0049]), wherein
the electrolytic solution used for the lithium ion secondary battery has
an electrolyte containing lithium salt (see [0030]), and
a nonaqueous solvent containing cyclic alkylene carbonate (see [0032]) and methyl propionate (see [0015] and [0026]), and
in the electrolytic solution, the electrolyte contains lithium salt other than LiPF6 (see [0030] - these support salts may be used alone or in a combination of two or more).
Horikawa is silent to wherein the electrolyte contains lithium salt other than LiPF6 in an amount of not less than 30 mol % with respect to a total amount of the lithium salt. However, Horikawa teaches that the concentration of the support salt in the non-aqueous electrolyte is preferably 0.2-2.0 mol/L (M), more preferably 0.5-1.2 mol/L (M). When the concentration of the support salt is less than 0.2 mol/L, the electric conductivity of the electrolyte cannot be sufficiently ensured and troubles may be caused in the discharge property and the charge property of the battery, while when it exceeds 2.0 mol/L, the viscosity of the electrolyte rises and the sufficient mobility of the lithium ion cannot be ensured, and hence the sufficient electric conductivity of the electrolyte cannot be ensured and troubles may be caused in the discharge property and the charge property of the battery likewise the above-mentioned case. Thus, the amount of the lithium salt, including the lithium salt other than LiPF6, is a result effective variable, and it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Horikawa further teaches a total content of the cyclic phosphazene and the methyl ester compound, which can include methyl propionate (see [0026]), is preferable to be not less than 60% by volume (see [0027]-[0029]), but is silent to wherein the nonaqueous solvent contains 75 volume % or more of the methyl propionate, wherein the lithium salt other than LiPF6 is lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, and a ratio of the cyclic alkylene carbonate to a total volume of the cyclic alkylene carbonate and the methyl propionate is 10 to 25 volume%.
Abe teaches an electrolyte for a battery which contains LiFSi as an electrolyte, and its content is 70% by mass or less based on the total amount of electrolyte. The electrolyte solution comprises an electrolyte and a non-aqueous solvent for dissolving it, and may also contain additives as needed. The electrolyte solution contains electrolytes other than LiFSI, and their content is 30% by mass or more based on the total amount of electrolytes, and Hoshi teaches that this can include LiPF6. The non-aqueous solvent is not particularly limited. Examples include cyclic carbonates, linear carbonates, linear esters, cyclic ethers, linear ethers, and cyclic sulfones, which may be used individually or in combination of two or more. Hoshi teaches the cyclic carbonate may include ethylene carbonate, and the linear carbonate may include methyl propionate. When the non-aqueous solvent contains at least one selected from the group consisting of cyclic carbonates and linear carbonates, the mixing ratio of cyclic carbonates to linear carbonates is preferably 1/9 to 6/4 (by volume), and more preferably 2/8 to 5/5, from the viewpoint of battery characteristics (see p. 16-20). This combination helps to improve the characteristics of lithium-ion secondary batteries and aims to provide a lithium-ion secondary battery that is excellent in cycle characteristics, storage characteristics, and input characteristics (see p. 2).
In view of Abe’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the battery of Horikawa to include wherein the nonaqueous solvent contains 75 volume % or more of the methyl propionate, wherein the lithium salt other than LiPF6 is lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, and a ratio of the cyclic alkylene carbonate to a total volume of the cyclic alkylene carbonate and the methyl propionate is 10 to 25 volume%, because it helps to improve the characteristics of lithium-ion secondary batteries and aims to provide a lithium-ion secondary battery that is excellent in cycle characteristics, storage characteristics, and input characteristics. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 2, Horikawa teaches an electrolytic solution comprising:
an electrolyte containing lithium salt (see [0030]); and
a nonaqueous solvent containing cyclic alkylene carbonate (see [0032]) and methyl propionate (see [0015] and [0026]), and wherein
the electrolyte contains lithium salt other than LiPF6 (see [0030] - these support salts may be used alone or in a combination of two or more).
Horikawa is silent to wherein the electrolyte contains lithium salt other than LiPF6 in an amount of not less than 30 mol % with respect to a total amount of the lithium salt. However, Horikawa teaches that the concentration of the support salt in the non-aqueous electrolyte is preferably 0.2-2.0 mol/L (M), more preferably 0.5-1.2 mol/L (M). When the concentration of the support salt is less than 0.2 mol/L, the electric conductivity of the electrolyte cannot be sufficiently ensured and troubles may be caused in the discharge property and the charge property of the battery, while when it exceeds 2.0 mol/L, the viscosity of the electrolyte rises and the sufficient mobility of the lithium ion cannot be ensured, and hence the sufficient electric conductivity of the electrolyte cannot be ensured and troubles may be caused in the discharge property and the charge property of the battery likewise the above-mentioned case. Thus, the amount of the lithium salt, including the lithium salt other than LiPF6, is a result effective variable, and it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Horikawa further teaches a total content of the cyclic phosphazene and the methyl ester compound, which can include methyl propionate (see [0026]), is preferable to be not less than 60% by volume (see [0027]-[0029]), but is silent to wherein the nonaqueous solvent contains 75 volume % or more of the methyl propionate, wherein the lithium salt other than LiPF6 is lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, and a ratio of the cylic alkylene carbonate to a total volume of the cyclic alkylene carbonate and the methyl propionate is 10 to 25 volume%.
Abe teaches an electrolyte for a battery which contains LiFSi as an electrolyte, and its content is 70% by mass or less based on the total amount of electrolyte. The electrolyte solution comprises an electrolyte and a non-aqueous solvent for dissolving it, and may also contain additives as needed. The electrolyte solution contains electrolytes other than LiFSI, and their content is 30% by mass or more based on the total amount of electrolytes, and Hoshi teaches that this can include LiPF6. The non-aqueous solvent is not particularly limited. Examples include cyclic carbonates, linear carbonates, linear esters, cyclic ethers, linear ethers, and cyclic sulfones, which may be used individually or in combination of two or more. Hoshi teaches the cyclic carbonate may include ethylene carbonate, and the linear carbonate may include methyl propionate. When the non-aqueous solvent contains at least one selected from the group consisting of cyclic carbonates and linear carbonates, the mixing ratio of cyclic carbonates to linear carbonates is preferably 1/9 to 6/4 (by volume), and more preferably 2/8 to 5/5, from the viewpoint of battery characteristics (see p. 16-20). This combination helps to improve the characteristics of lithium-ion secondary batteries and aims to provide a lithium-ion secondary battery that is excellent in cycle characteristics, storage characteristics, and input characteristics (see p. 2).
In view of Abe’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the battery of Horikawa to include wherein the nonaqueous solvent contains 75 volume % or more of the methyl propionate, wherein the lithium salt other than LiPF6 is lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, and a ratio of the cyclic alkylene carbonate to a total volume of the cyclic alkylene carbonate and the methyl propionate is 10 to 25 volume%, because it helps to improve the characteristics of lithium-ion secondary batteries and aims to provide a lithium-ion secondary battery that is excellent in cycle characteristics, storage characteristics, and input characteristics. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Horikawa and Abe teaches wherein the lithium salt other than LiPF6 is (FSO2)2NLi (Abe: see p. 16-17).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Horikawa and Abe teaches wherein the nonaqueous solvent contains 80 volume % or more of the methyl propionate (see rejection for claim 2 above; Abe: see p. 16-20). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Horikawa and Abe teaches wherein the electrolyte contains the lithium salt other than LiPF6 in an amount of not less than 50 mol % with respect to the total amount of the lithium salt (Abe: an electrolyte for a battery which contains LiFSi as an electrolyte, and its content is 70% by mass or less based on the total amount of electrolyte. The electrolyte solution comprises an electrolyte and a non-aqueous solvent for dissolving it, and may also contain additives as needed. The electrolyte solution contains electrolytes other than LiFSI, and their content is 30% by mass or more based on the total amount of electrolytes, and Hoshi teaches that this can include LiPF6 (see p. 16-20)).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Horikawa and Abe teaches wherein the negative electrode contains graphite in the negative electrode active material layer (Horikawa: see [0037]).
Regarding claims 7 and 8 the combination of Horikawa and Abe teaches wherein
the cyclic alkylene carbonate is ethylene carbonate (Horikawa: see [0032]; Abe: see p. 19),
the nonaqueous solvent consists of ethylene carbonate (Horikawa: see [0032]; Abe: see p. 19) and methyl propionate (Horikawa: see [0026]; Abe: see p.19), and
the electrolytic solution further comprises an additive (Abe: see p. 20-21).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-7 of the remarks, Applicant argues, with respect to claim 1, that the prior art of Horikawa would not have led one of ordinary skill in the art to select LiFSI as the support salt, and further use the solvent composition which now requires a ratio of the cyclic alkylene carbonate to a total volume of the cyclic alkylene carbonate and the methyl propionate is limited to 10 to 25 volume %, as required by amended claim 1.
The Examiner finds this argument moot as the claims are now being rejected in view of the combination of Horikawa and Abe (WO 2017/022731 A1; using the attached English machine translation for citations).
Abe teaches an electrolyte for a battery which contains LiFSi as an electrolyte, and its content is 70% by mass or less based on the total amount of electrolyte. The electrolyte solution comprises an electrolyte and a non-aqueous solvent for dissolving it, and may also contain additives as needed. The electrolyte solution contains electrolytes other than LiFSI, and their content is 30% by mass or more based on the total amount of electrolytes, and Hoshi teaches that this can include LiPF6. The non-aqueous solvent is not particularly limited. Examples include cyclic carbonates, linear carbonates, linear esters, cyclic ethers, linear ethers, and cyclic sulfones, which may be used individually or in combination of two or more. Hoshi teaches the cyclic carbonate may include ethylene carbonate, and the linear carbonate may include methyl propionate. When the non-aqueous solvent contains at least one selected from the group consisting of cyclic carbonates and linear carbonates, the mixing ratio of cyclic carbonates to linear carbonates is preferably 1/9 to 6/4 (by volume), and more preferably 2/8 to 5/5, from the viewpoint of battery characteristics (see p. 16-20). This combination helps to improve the characteristics of lithium-ion secondary batteries and aims to provide a lithium-ion secondary battery that is excellent in cycle characteristics, storage characteristics, and input characteristics (see p. 2).
In view of Abe’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the battery of Horikawa to include wherein the nonaqueous solvent contains 75 volume % or more of the methyl propionate, wherein the lithium salt other than LiPF6 is lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, and a ratio of the cyclic alkylene carbonate to a total volume of the cyclic alkylene carbonate and the methyl propionate is 10 to 25 volume%, because it helps to improve the characteristics of lithium-ion secondary batteries and aims to provide a lithium-ion secondary battery that is excellent in cycle characteristics, storage characteristics, and input characteristics. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
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 STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458 . 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.
/S.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 22 September 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
