DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 15, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 21 are currently amended. Claims 4-6 are canceled. Claim 22 is newly added. Claims 1-3, 7-16 and 18-22 are pending review in this action.
New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are presented below.
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 1-3, 7, 8, 18-20 and 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0223916, hereinafter Zhang in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0231345, hereinafter Hwangbo and U.S. Patent No. 6,541,162, hereinafter Song.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a lithium-ion battery cell. The lithium-ion battery cell includes an aluminum housing (“shell”) and an electrolyte accommodated in the aluminum housing (“shell”) (paragraph [0056]).
The electrolyte comprises an electrolytic salt and a linear ester solvent (paragraphs [0018, 0024, 0032]). The electrolytic salt comprises the hexafluorophosphate LiPF6 and the sulfonylimide lithium fluorosulfonyl (trifluoromethane sulfonyl) imide (LiFTFSI) (paragraph [0024], Table 1 and Table 3).
In one specific example, LiPF6 is present at 0.2 M and the ratio of the molar concentration of LiFTFSI to LiPF6 is 4 (Table 1, Example 2).
In another specific example, LiPF6 is present at 0.5 M and the ratio of the molar concentration of LiFTFSI to LiPF6 is 3 (Table 3, Example 8).
Zhang teaches that the linear ester solvent comprises a linear carboxylate and a linear carbonate (paragraphs [0032-0035]). Zhang explicitly recites the linear carboxylates methyl acetate (MA), ethyl acetate and propyl acetate (paragraph [0035]) and the linear carbonates dimethyl carbonate (DMC), diethyl carbonate, methyl ethyl carbonate, methyl propyl carbonate (paragraph [0034]). Zhang does not specify the relative concentrations of the linear carboxylate and linear carbonate.
Zhang fails to: 1) teach that the lithium battery cell is cylindrical; and 2) specify a concentration by weight for the linear carboxylate in the electrolyte.
Regarding 1), it is well-known in the art that a cylindrical metal case is a customary case for a lithium-ion battery. See, e.g. Hwangbo who teaches a cylindrical lithium-ion battery cell having a case formed of metal (paragraphs [0047, 0179]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enclose Zhang’s lithium-ion battery cell in a metal cylindrical case as this is a widely used type of case for lithium-ion battery cells.
Regarding 2), Song teaches an electrolyte for a lithium-ion battery (abstract). The electrolyte comprises a lithium salt and a solvent (col. 3, lines 49-51). The solvent is a mixture of an alkyl acetate (“linear carboxylate”) and a linear carbonate (col. 3, lines 52-54). The alkyl acetate (“linear carboxylate”) is present in the range 5 vol% to 60 vol% (col. 3, line 54).
Song’s examples of suitable linear carboxylates are the same as Zhang’s - methyl acetate (MA), ethyl acetate, propyl acetate (col. 3, lines 62-65).
Song’s examples of suitable linear carbonates are also the same as Zhang’s - dimethyl carbonate (DMC), diethyl carbonate, methyl ethyl carbonate, methyl propyl carbonate (col. 3, lines 56-59).
In a specific example, Song teaches a mixture of electrolyte solvents including DMC, MA and ethylene carbonate (EC). The composition is 30 vol% DMC, 40 vol% MA and 30 vol% EC (Table 1, Example 4). Using the densities of the solvents (DMC – 1.07 g/ml, MA – 0.934 g/ml and EC – 1.32 g/ml), it can be calculated that MA is present at 34 wt%.
Song teaches that the composition of the solvent provides improved low temperature performance and safety (col. 6, lines 44-46).
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a concentration for the linear carboxylate within the claimed range for the purpose of assuring an improved low temperature performance and safety for the battery as taught by Song.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Zhang teaches in specific examples that LiPF6 is present at 0.2 M (Table 1, Example 2) and 0.5 M (Table 3, Example 8).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang teaches a total molar concentration of the electrolytic salt in the range 0.8 M to 2 M (paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang teaches in a specific example that the molar concentration of the electrolytic salt is 1.0 M (Table 1, Example 2).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Zhang teaches LIFTFSI (paragraph [0018]). The anion in LIFTFSI is represented by the formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
76
152
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This formula corresponds to the instantly claimed formula A with instant R1 being the halogen atom fluorine (F) and R2 being a C3 fluoroalkyl group (paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 20, Zhang’s battery cell is itself a battery.
Regarding claim 22, Zhang teaches a lithium-ion battery cell. The lithium-ion battery cell includes an aluminum housing (“shell”) and an electrolyte accommodated in the aluminum housing (“shell”) (paragraph [0056]).
The electrolyte comprises an electrolytic salt and a linear ester solvent (paragraphs [0018, 0024, 0032]). The electrolytic salt comprises the hexafluorophosphate LiPF6 and the sulfonylimide lithium fluorosulfonyl (trifluoromethane sulfonyl) imide (LiFTFSI) (paragraph [0024], Table 1 and Table 3).
In various specific examples, LiPF6 is present at 0.2 M, 0.4M, 0.5M and 0.6 M (Table 1, Example 2 and Table 3, Examples 7-10).
The anion in LiFTFSI is represented by the instantly claimed formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
76
152
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zhang teaches that the linear ester solvent comprises a linear carboxylate and a linear carbonate (paragraphs [0032-0035]). Zhang explicitly recites the linear carboxylates methyl acetate (MA), ethyl acetate and propyl acetate (paragraph [0035]) and the linear carbonates dimethyl carbonate (DMC), diethyl carbonate, methyl ethyl carbonate, methyl propyl carbonate (paragraph [0034]). Zhang does not specify the relative concentrations of the linear carboxylate and linear carbonate.
Zhang fails to: 1) teach that the lithium battery cell is cylindrical; and 2) specify a concentration by weight for the linear carboxylate in the electrolyte.
Regarding 1), it is well-known in the art that a cylindrical metal case is a customary case for a lithium-ion battery. See, e.g. Hwangbo who teaches a cylindrical lithium-ion battery cell having a case formed of metal (paragraphs [0047, 0179]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enclose Zhang’s lithium-ion battery cell in a metal cylindrical case as this is a widely used type of case for lithium-ion battery cells.
Regarding 2), Song teaches an electrolyte for a lithium-ion battery (col. 3, lines 7-10). The electrolyte comprises a lithium salt and a solvent (col. 3, lines 49-51). The solvent is a mixture of an alkyl acetate (“linear carboxylate”) and a linear carbonate (col. 3, lines 52-54). The alkyl acetate (“linear carboxylate”) is present in the range 5 vol% to 60 vol% (col. 3, line 54).
Song’s examples of suitable linear carboxylates are the same as Zhang’s - methyl acetate (MA), ethyl acetate, propyl acetate (col. 3, lines 62-65).
Song’s examples of suitable linear carbonates are also the same as Zhang’s - dimethyl carbonate (DMC), diethyl carbonate, methyl ethyl carbonate, methyl propyl carbonate (col. 3, lines 56-59).
In a specific example, Song teaches a mixture of electrolyte solvents including DMC, MA and ethylene carbonate (EC). The composition is 30 vol% DMC, 40 vol% MA and 30 vol% EC (Table 1, Example 4). Using the densities of the solvents (DMC – 1.07 g/ml, MA – 0.934 g/ml and EC – 1.32 g/ml), it can be calculated that MA is present at 34 wt%.
Song teaches that the composition of the solvent provides improved low temperature performance and safety (col. 6, lines 44-46).
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a concentration for the linear carboxylate within the claimed range for the purpose of assuring an improved low temperature performance and safety for the battery as taught by Song.
Claims 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0223916, hereinafter Zhang in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0231345, hereinafter Hwangbo and U.S. Patent No. 6,541,162, hereinafter Song as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0403539, hereinafter Goto.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang as modified by Hwangbo teaches a cylindrical battery case (shell), which is made of steel and has a nickel-plated layer (“film layer”) on its surface (Hwangbo’s paragraphs [0047, 0052, 0187]).
Zhang as modified by Hwangbo fails to specify that the nickel-plated layer (“film layer”) is at least on a surface of the steel (“shell body”) facing the electrolyte.
Goto teaches a nickel-plated steel sheet for a battery container (paragraph [0002]). Goto teaches that the nickel plating is disposed on both surfaces of the nickel-plated steel sheet (paragraph [0042]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the nickel plating on both sides of the steel (“shell body”) for the purpose of providing corrosion resistance on both sides.
Regarding claim 10, Zhang as modified by Hwangbo teaches that the nickel-plated layer (“film layer”) has a thickness in the range 1.5 µm to 6 µm (Hwangbo’s paragraph [0187]).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang as modified by Hwangbo teaches that the nickel-plated layer (“film layer”) has a thickness in the range 1.5 µm to 6 µm (Hwangbo’s paragraph [0187]).
The optimum range for the film layer thickness in the combination of Zhang and Hwangbo overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 2 µm to 4 µm. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Zhang as modified by Hwangbo teaches that the battery case (“shell”) is made of steel (“shell body”) and has a nickel-plated layer (“film layer”) on its surface (Hwangbo’s paragraphs [0047, 0052, 0187]).
Zhang as modified by Hwangbo fails to teach the nickel concentration in the nickel-plated layer (“film layer”).
Goto teaches a nickel-plated steel sheet for a battery container (paragraph [0002]). The nickel-plated steel sheet includes a base steel sheet (11) and a Ni-based coating layer (12) (paragraph [0034]). Goto teaches that the Ni-based coating layer (12) includes 50 wt% to 95 wt% nickel (paragraph [0043]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Ni at a concentration of 50 wt% to 95 wt% in the nickel-plated layer (“film layer”) in the combination of Zhang and Hwangbo for the purpose of ensuring sufficient corrosion resistance.
The optimum range for the Ni concentration in the combination of Zhang, Hwangbo and Goto overlaps the instant application's optimum ranges of 70 wt% to 100 wt% and 80 wt% to 95 wt%. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 14-16, Zhang as modified by Hwangbo teaches that the battery case (“shell”) is made of steel (“shell body”) and has a nickel-plated layer (“film layer”) on its surface (paragraphs [0047, 0052, 0187]).
Zhang as modified by Hwangbo fails to teach that the nickel-plated layer (“film layer”) includes iron and carbon.
Goto teaches a nickel-plated steel sheet for a battery container (paragraph [0002]). The nickel-plated steel sheet includes a base steel sheet (11) and a Ni-based coating layer (12) (paragraph [0034]). Goto teaches that the Ni-based coating layer (12) includes 5 wt% to 50 wt% iron (paragraph [0043]).
Goto further teaches that the preparation process of the material causes a diffusion of carbon from the steel into the Ni-based coating layer (12) (paragraphs [0032, 0034, 0048]). Specifically, Goto teaches that this diffusion causes a carbon concentration equal to or more than twice of the carbon concentration in the base steel sheet (11) (paragraph [0048]). Goto teaches that this increased carbon concentration improves the adhesion between the base steel sheet (11) and the Ni-based coating layer (12) (paragraph [0049]).
Goto teaches a carbon concentration in the base steel sheet (11) of 0.057 wt% (Table 1). Thus, the carbon concentration found in the Ni-based coating layer (12) is understood to be greater than 0.114 wt%.
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Fe at a concentration of 5 wt% to 50 wt% and carbon at a concentration of greater than 0.114 wt% in the nickel-plated layer (“film layer”) in the combination of Zhang and Hwangbo for the purpose of ensuring sufficient corrosion resistance and adhesion strength between the nickel-plated layer (“film layer”) and the steel shell.
The optimum range for the Fe and C concentration in the combination of Zhang, Hwangbo and Goto overlaps the instant application's optimum ranges of 0.1 wt% to 10 wt% and 1 wt% to 5 wt% for Fe and 0.1 wt% to 15 wt% and 4 wt% to 12 wt% for C. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0223916, hereinafter Zhang in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0231345, hereinafter Hwangbo.
Regarding claim 21, Zhang teaches a lithium-ion battery cell. The lithium-ion battery cell includes an aluminum housing (“shell”) and an electrolyte accommodated in the aluminum housing (“shell”) (paragraph [0056]).
The electrolyte comprises an electrolytic salt. The electrolytic salt comprises the hexafluorophosphate LiPF6 and the sulfonylimide lithium fluorosulfonyl (trifluoromethane sulfonyl) imide (LiFTFSI) (paragraphs [0018 and 0024]).
In one specific example, LiPF6 is present at 0.2 M and the ratio of the molar concentration of LiFTFSI to LiPF6 is 4 (Table 1, Example 2).
In another specific example, LiPF6 is present at 0.5 M and the ratio of the molar concentration of LiFTFSI to LiPF6 is 3 (Table 3, Example 8).
The anion in LiFTFSI is represented by the instantly claimed formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
76
152
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zhang fails to teach that the lithium battery cell is cylindrical.
It is well-known in the art that a cylindrical metal case is a customary case for a lithium-ion battery. See, e.g. Hwangbo who teaches a cylindrical lithium-ion battery cell having a case formed of metal (paragraphs [0047, 0179]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enclose Zhang’s lithium-ion battery cell in a metal cylindrical case as this is a widely used type of case for lithium-ion battery cells.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s newly added limitations have been considered. However, after further search and consideration, the combination of the Zhang, Hwangbo and Song references has been provided, as recited above, to address the amended claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 5.00 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
LILIA V. NEDIALKOVA
Examiner
Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724