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
Claims 1-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 5/15/26.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
To Claim 6, line 3, “LiFSI” should be written-out.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. “Thermal Properties of Alkali Bis(fluorosulfonyl)amides and their Binary Mixtures”, submitted in IDS 10/11/23 and in view of Beran “A new Route to the Syntheses of Alkali Metal bis(fluorosulfuryl)imides: Crystal Structure of LiN(SO2F)2”.
Kubota describes a method of making an alkali bis(fluorosulfonyl)amide that employs a binary mixture of alkali metals (abstract). Kubota explains that their product is made in the same manner as reported by Beran (see “Experimental Section”, line 1). In the Beran reference, Beran teaches making a lithium and sodium salt (see section 2.1, para. 2).
Kubota describes using the Beran reference to make a binary alkali salt mixture by adding a lithium precursor (LiCLO4) and a Rb and Cs precursor (Rb2CO3, CsCl) (see “Experimental Section”, para. 1). Kubota explains that the potassium-form of bis(fluorosulfonyl)amide is reacted with LiClO4 (see “Experimental Section”, para. 1) but cites to Beran on the process. In Beran, the reference shows that the potassium-form of bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide is made by ion-exchanging a MClO4 salt (M can be Li or Na) with potassium to make a lithium- bis(fluorosulfonyl)amide (see scheme 1). Beran shows the formula in terms of:
PNG
media_image1.png
160
164
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Instead of showing that Rb and N are in solution in the form of: N- and Rb+, Beran shows the composition in terms of -RbN-. However, Beran explains that scheme 2 reflects the precipitated form the product (see page 1293, right col, para. 1). Therefore, since this product was in a solvent (see page 1293, left col, last line), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the solvent-containing version of this compound has the same formula as shown in Claim 5. In other words, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the Li and Cs, Rb metals in Beran that are attached to the -N- and would ionized in the solution-form of these compounds because they are the same composition and would react the same if dissolved in the same solution.
As to Claim 7, Beran teaches that the lithium salt can be LiClO4 (section 2.1, left col, line 9).
As to Claims 8 and 9, Beran teaches that the Rb and Cs salts can be RbClO4 and CsClO4 (section 2.1, left col, last para).
As to Claims 12 and 13, Kubota and Beran describe ion-exchanging (see above), but they do not describe a specific temperature range. The temperature range claimed overlaps ambient temperature however. Therefore, absent a recitation of the temperature, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the process steps operate at ambient temperature.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US Pat.: 9079780).
Sato describes a method of making an alkali metal salt of fluorosulfonyimide (title). Sato explains that the term “fluorosulfonyl imide” includes bis(flurosulfonyl)imide (col. 4, lines 8-10). The composition is first made to include a Li-cation (col. 8, line 20). Alternatively, the alkali cation can be one of Na or K (see col. 8, line 20). Next, the compound is subject to cation-exchange (col. 10, line 26) using an alkali that can include a lithium salt, Rb salt and/or a Cesium salt (col. 10, lines 45-54). The cation-exchanged step is stirred (col. 21, lines 38-40). Sato explains that there is no limitation on the number of cation exchange steps performed (col. 13, lines 1-2). Sato suggests that the ion-exchange steps may be performed once or twice or more repeatedly (col. 13, lines 3-4). Also, Sato states that the cations exchanged into the fluorosulfonyimide can be different (col. 13, lines 3-9). The exchange can take place in the presence of a solvent (col. 10, lines 35-36).
Therefore, although Sato does not specifically state combining a lithium salt with one of either Cesium or Rubidium, since Sato states that there can be multi ion-exchange steps and that the ions exchanged into the fluorosulfonyimide can vary and since that the metals used the ion-exchange steps can include lithium salts, Cesium Salts and Rubidum salts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ion-exchange the fluorosulfonyimide repeatedly using different ions, to include lithium and then cesium or rubidium salts because Sato explains that fluorosulfonyimide can be processed in this way.
For Claim 5, as to exchanging these salts simultaneously, although Sato does not disclose this feature, caselaw has stated that, it would be obvious to change the order of performing a process in the absence of new or unexpected results. See: Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959, that states: “Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946). That is, selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.) see MPEP §2144.04.
As to Claims 7, 8 and 9, Sato teaches that the lithium salt can be LiOH and that the cesium salt can be CsCl or those in the list in col. 10 and that the Rb salt can include RbHCO3 or those in the list in col. 10, lines 45-54).
As to Claims 10 and 11, Sato teaches that a large number of solvent compositions can be used, one of which is water (col. 9, lines 55-67 to col. 10, lines 1-12).
As to Claims 12 and 13, Sato teaches ion-exchanging (see above), but does not describe a specific temperature range. The temperature range claimed overlaps ambient temperature however. Therefore, absent a recitation of the temperature, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the process steps operate at ambient temperature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Fung Coris can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights