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 .
This is a final office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on March 18, 2026. Claims 1, 21 and 22 are currently amended. Claims 7 and 8 are canceled. Claims 23 and 24 are newly added. Claims 1-3, 9-16 and 18-24 are pending review in this action.
New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are presented below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on March 2, 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites the limitation: “the molar concentration of the hexafluorophosphate is 0.3 mol/L to 0.7 mol/L”.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1 via claim 2.
Claim 1 requires a total molar concentration of electrolytic salt in the range 0.5 mol/L to 0.7 mol/L and a ratio of molar concentration of sulfonylimide to hexafluorophosphate in the range 2.5 to 6.
Given the requirements of claim 1, the limitation of claim 3 cannot be met and poses an impossible contradiction.
The lowest permitted concentration for hexafluorophosphate in claim 3 is 0.3 mol/L. Applying the lowest permitted ratio from claim 1 – 2.5 – results in a sulfonylimide concentration of 0.75 mol/L. This concentration alone exceeds the permitted total maximum of 0.7 mol/L. The sum for hexafluorophosphate and sulfonylimide would be 0.3 mol/L + 0.75 mol/L = 1.05 mol/L – well above the permitted total.
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 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0349198, hereinafter Lim in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0231345, hereinafter Hwangbo.
Regarding claim 1, Lim teaches a cylindrical lithium-ion battery cell. The cylindrical lithium-ion battery cell includes a can (“shell”) and an electrolyte accommodated in the can (“shell”) (paragraphs [0004, 0053]).
The electrolyte comprises an electrolytic salt and a linear ester solvent (abstract, paragraphs [0034-0039]). The electrolytic salt comprises the hexafluorophosphate LiPF6 and the sulfonylimide lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl) imide (LiFSI) (paragraphs [0026, 0037-0039, 0057, 0062, 0063]).
Lim teaches that a ratio of a molar concentration of LiFSI to LiPF6 is in the range 1 to 9 (paragraph [0039]). In specific examples, Lim teaches a ratio of 5 (paragraph [0063]) and 6 (paragraph [0062]).
Lim teaches that LiFSI may be present at a concentration in the range 0.1 M to 2 M (paragraph [0037]). Based on this and the required ratio, Lim teaches a range for the molar concentration for LiPF6 and for the total electrolytic salt molar concentration that overlap the instantly claimed ranges.
For example, a LiFSI molar concentration of 0.5 M and a ratio of 5 would result in a molar concentration for LiPF6 of 0.1 M and a total electrolytic salt molar concentration of 0.6 M.
Lim teaches that the linear ester solvent comprises a linear carboxylate and a linear carbonate (paragraphs [0034-0036]). In a specific example Lim teaches that the solvent comprises the linear carboxylate ethyl propionate (EP) and the linear carbonate dimethyl carbonate (DMC). The linear carboxylate EP is present at 40 wt% (paragraph [0057]).
Lim fails to teach that the cylindrical can (“shell”) is metal.
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 Lim’s lithium-ion battery cell in a metal cylindrical case as this is a widely used type of case for lithium-ion battery cells.
Lim’s optimum ranges for the molar concentration of LiPF6 and the total molar concentration of the electrolytic salt overlap the instant application's optimum ranges of less than or equal to 0.9 M and 0.5 M to 0.7 M, respectively. 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 claim 2, Lim teaches that a ratio of a molar concentration of LiFSI to LiPF6 is in the range 1 to 9 (paragraph [0039]).
Lim teaches that LiFSI may be present at a concentration in the range 0.1 M to 2 M (paragraph [0037]). Based on this and the required ratio, Lim teaches a range for the molar concentration for LiPF6 that overlaps the instantly claimed range.
For example, a LiFSI molar concentration of 0.5 M and a ratio of 2.5 would result in a molar concentration for LiPF6 of 0.2 M and a total electrolytic salt molar concentration of 0.7 M.
Lim’s optimum range for the molar concentration of LiPF6 overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 0.2 M to 0.8 M. 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 18 and 19, Lim teaches LiFSI (abstract). The anion in LiFSI is represented by the formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
80
138
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This formula corresponds to the instantly claimed formula A with instant R1 and R2 being the halogen atom fluorine (F) (paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 20, Lim’s cylindrical battery cell is itself a battery.
Claims 9-16 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0349198, hereinafter Lim in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0231345, hereinafter Hwangbo as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0403539, hereinafter Goto.
Regarding claim 9, Lim 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]).
Lim 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, Lim 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, Lim 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 Lim 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, Lim 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]).
Lim 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 Lim and Hwangbo for the purpose of ensuring sufficient corrosion resistance.
The optimum range for the Ni concentration in the combination of Lim, 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, Lim 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]).
Lim 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.
Regarding claim 24, Lim 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]).
Lim 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]). Goto teaches that the nickel plating may have a Ni alloy layer containing 90% or more by mass of Ni (“matrix element”) and less than 5% by mass of Fe (paragraphs [0060, 0063]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Hwangbo’s nickel-plated layer, such that it includes a Ni alloy layer (“film”) including 90% or more by mass of Ni and less than 5% by mass of Fe and such that the nickel-plated layer faces the electrolyte for the purpose of providing corrosion resistance to the shell (20 and 30).
The optimum range of Lim as modified by Hwangbo and Goto for the concentration of Fe overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 0.1% by mass to 4.5% by mass. 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 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0349198, hereinafter Lim in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0231345, hereinafter Hwangbo as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0079991, hereinafter Lee and Electrochimica Acta, 280, pp 290-299, hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 23, Lim teaches that the electrolytic salt in the electrolyte comprises LiPF6 and the sulfonylimide LiFSI (paragraphs [0037-0039]).
Lim fails to teach that the sulfonylimide comprises the claimed anion.
Lee teaches an analogous electrolyte comprising an electrolytic salt, which is a mixture of LiPF6 and a sulfonylimide at concentrations matching Lim’s (paragraphs [0035-0040]). Lee explicitly recites LiFSI (Li(FSO2)N), lithium sulfonylimides with perfluorinated asymmetric anions and any lithium sulfonylimide used in the art as a suitable sulfonylimide (paragraph [0035]).
The instantly claimed sulfonylimide (known as LiFPFSI) includes an asymmetric perfluorinated anion and is known as a lithium salt for use in a lithium battery electrolyte – see, e.g. Zhang (abstract, p. 291, left column, 2nd paragraph, Figure 1g). Zhang further teaches that the asymmetric perfluorinated anions offer enhanced thermal stability and resistance to corrosion of the Al current collector (p. 291, left column, 2nd paragraph).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use LiFPFSI in place of LiFSI as the sulfonylimide in Lim’s electrolyte as it is an obvious, known variant and further for the purpose of achieving enhanced thermal stability and resistance to corrosion of the Al current collector.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0214073, hereinafter Iwaya.
Regarding claim 21, Iwaya teaches a cylindrical battery cell (paragraph [0124]). The cylindrical battery cell includes a metal exterior package (“shell”) and an electrolyte accommodated in the metal exterior package (“shell”) (paragraph [0128]).
The electrolyte comprises an electrolytic salt (paragraph [0026]). The electrolytic salt comprises the hexafluorophosphate LiPF6 and the sulfonylimide lithium bis(pentafluoroethanesulfonyl) imide (LiBETI) (paragraph [0027]). The anion in LiBETI is represented by the instantly claimed formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
60
181
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Iwaya teaches that a total molar concentration of the electrolytic salt is in the range 0.5 M to 2 M (paragraph [0029]). Any molar concentration for the electrolytic salt that falls within the range 0.5 M to 0.9 M would necessarily have a molar concentration of LiPF6 that is less than 0.9 M.
Iwaya further teaches that a ratio of the molar concentration of LiBETI to the molar concentration of LiPF6 is in the range 0.01 to 10 (paragraph [0034]).
Iwaya's optimum ranges for the total molar concentration of the electrolytic salt, the molar concentration of LiPF6 and the ratio of the molar concentration of LiBETI to the molar concentration of LiPF6 overlap the instant application's optimum ranges of 0.5 M to 0.7 M, less than 0.9 M and 2.5 to 6, respectively. 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. 2014/0079991, hereinafter Lee in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0214073, hereinafter Iwaya.
Regarding claim 21, Lee teaches a cylindrical battery cell (paragraph [0073] and figure 4). The cylindrical battery cell includes a battery case (“shell”) and an electrolyte accommodated in the battery case (“shell”) (paragraph [0073]).
The electrolyte comprises an electrolytic salt (paragraphs [0035-0040]). The electrolytic salt comprises the hexafluorophosphate LiPF6 and the sulfonylimide lithium bis(pentafluoroethanesulfonyl) imide (Li(C2F5SO2)2N) (LiBETI) (paragraph [0040, 0035]). The anion in LiBETI is represented by the instantly claimed formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
60
181
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee teaches that LiPF6 has a concentration in the range 0.01 M to 2.0 M (paragraph [0039]).
In a specific example, Lee teaches that the ratio of molar concentration of the sulfonylimide to the molar concentration of LiPF6 is 4.5 (paragraph [0090]).
Lee does not explicitly teach that the battery case is metal and a total molar concentration for the electrolytic salt.
Iwaya teaches an analogous electrolyte comprising a mixture of LiPF6 and LiBETI (paragraphs [0027]). Iwaya teaches that a total molar concentration of the electrolytic salt is in the range 0.5 M to 2 M for the purpose of achieving optimum conductivity and handleability (paragraph [0029]).
Iwaya further teaches a metal battery case (paragraph [0128]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that the total molar concentration of the electrolytic salt is in the range 0.5 M to 2 M for the purpose of achieving optimum conductivity and handleability and to select metal for the battery case as this is a widely used type of case for lithium-ion battery cells.
The optimum ranges in the combination of Lee and Iwaya for the total molar concentration of the electrolytic salt and the molar concentration of LiPF6 overlap the instant application's optimum ranges of 0.5 M to 0.7 M and less than 0.9 M, respectively. 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. 2014/0349198, hereinafter Lim in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0231345, hereinafter Hwangbo, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0079991, hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 21, Lim teaches a cylindrical lithium-ion battery cell. The cylindrical lithium-ion battery cell includes a can (“shell”) and an electrolyte accommodated in the can (“shell”) (paragraphs [0004, 0053]).
The electrolyte comprises an electrolytic salt (abstract, paragraphs [0037-0039]). The electrolytic salt comprises the hexafluorophosphate LiPF6 and the sulfonylimide LiFSI (paragraphs [0026, 0037-0039, 0057, 0062, 0063]).
Lim teaches that a ratio of a molar concentration of LiFSI to LiPF6 is in the range 1 to 9 (paragraph [0039]). In specific examples, Lim teaches a ratio of 5 (paragraph [0063]) and 6 (paragraph [0062]).
Lim teaches that LiFSI may be present at a concentration in the range 0.1 M to 2 M (paragraph [0037]). Based on this and the required ratio, Lim teaches a range for the molar concentration for LiPF6 and for the total electrolytic salt molar concentration that overlap the instantly claimed ranges.
For example, a LiFSI molar concentration of 0.5 M and a ratio of 5 would result in a molar concentration for LiPF6 of 0.1 M and a total electrolytic salt molar concentration of 0.6 M.
Lim fails to teach that: 1) the cylindrical can (“shell”) is metal and 2) the sulfonylimide includes one of the claimed anions.
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 Lim’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), Lee teaches an analogous electrolyte comprising an electrolytic salt, which is a mixture of LiPF6 and a sulfonylimide at concentrations matching Lim’s (paragraphs [0035-0040]). Lee explicitly recites LiFSI (Li(FSO2)N) and LiBETI (Li(C2F5SO2)2N) (paragraph [0035]).
The anion in LiBETI is represented by the instantly claimed formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
60
181
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use LiBETI in place of LiFSI as the sulfonylimide in Lim’s electrolyte as it is an obvious, known variant.
Lim’s optimum ranges for the molar concentration of LiPF6 and the total molar concentration of the electrolytic salt overlap the instant application's optimum ranges of less than or equal to 0.9 M and 0.5 M to 0.7 M, respectively. 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 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0349198, hereinafter Lim in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0231345, hereinafter Hwangbo, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0079991, hereinafter Lee and Electrochimica Acta, 280, pp 290-299, hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 22, Lim teaches a cylindrical lithium-ion battery cell. The cylindrical lithium-ion battery cell includes a can (“shell”) and an electrolyte accommodated in the can (“shell”) (paragraphs [0004, 0053]).
The electrolyte comprises an electrolytic salt and a linear ester solvent (abstract, paragraphs [0034-0039]). The electrolytic salt comprises the hexafluorophosphate LiPF6 and the sulfonylimide LiFSI (paragraphs [0026, 0037-0039, 0057, 0062, 0063]).
Lim teaches that a ratio of a molar concentration of LiFSI to LiPF6 is in the range 1 to 9 (paragraph [0039]). In specific examples, Lim teaches a ratio of 5 (paragraph [0063]) and 6 (paragraph [0062]).
Lim teaches that LiFSI may be present at a concentration in the range 0.1 M to 2 M (paragraph [0037]). Based on this and the required ratio, Lim teaches a range for the molar concentration for LiPF6 and for the total electrolytic salt molar concentration that overlap the instantly claimed ranges.
For example, a LiFSI molar concentration of 0.5 M and a ratio of 5 would result in a molar concentration for LiPF6 of 0.1 M and a total electrolytic salt molar concentration of 0.6 M.
Lim teaches that the linear ester solvent comprises a linear carboxylate and a linear carbonate (paragraphs [0034-0036]). In a specific example Lim teaches that the solvent comprises the linear carboxylate ethyl propionate (EP) and the linear carbonate dimethyl carbonate (DMC). The linear carboxylate EP is present at 40 wt% (paragraph [0057]).
Lim fails to teach that: 1) the cylindrical can (“shell”) is metal and 2) the sulfonylimide includes one of the claimed anions.
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 Lim’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), Lee teaches an analogous electrolyte comprising an electrolytic salt, which is a mixture of LiPF6 and a sulfonylimide at concentrations matching Lim’s (paragraphs [0035-0040]). Lee explicitly recites LiFSI (Li(FSO2)N), lithium sulfonylimides with perfluorinated asymmetric anions and any lithium sulfonylimide used in the art as a suitable sulfonylimide (paragraph [0035]).
The instantly claimed sulfonylimides (known as LiFTFSI and LiFPFSI) include an asymmetric perfluorinated anion and are known as lithium salts for use in a lithium battery electrolyte – see, e.g. Zhang (abstract, p. 291, left column, 2nd paragraph, Figures 1f, 1g). Zhang further teaches that the asymmetric perfluorinated anions offer enhanced thermal stability and resistance to corrosion of the Al current collector (p. 291, left column, 2nd paragraph).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use LiFTFSI or LiFPFSI in place of LiFSI as the sulfonylimide in Lim’s electrolyte as each is an obvious, known variant and further for the purpose of achieving enhanced thermal stability and resistance to corrosion of the Al current collector.
Lim’s optimum ranges for the molar concentration of LiPF6 and the total molar concentration of the electrolytic salt overlap the instant application's optimum ranges of less than or equal to 0.9 M and 0.5 M to 0.7 M, respectively. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s newly added limitations have been considered. However, after further search and consideration, the Iwaya reference, the combinations of the Lim and Hwangbo references, the Lim, Hwangbo and Lee references and the Lim, Hwangbo, Lee and Zhang references have been provided, as recited above, to address the amended claims.
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 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
Prosecution Insights